Political Correctness

[HenrySwanson]

I'm having a hard time picking which thread this video most belongs in, but I'm picking this one. I'm picking it partly because I perceive people chasing ghost accusations or unprovable accusations more on this topic than on some of the others where this fits. I enjoyed this video, and especially how far he goes into making sure that you have evidence of harmful behavior before accepting that you're a harmfully biased individual based on "tests".

The linked study at the end of the video doesn't technically show confounding results - it notes a correlation between "anti-black" bias and the decision to thrombolyse blacks vs whites but does admittedly show that those with the "least bias" are more likely to thrombolyse the black patient

(As an aside, does this mean the more "unbiased" the clinician, the more dangerous they are? What does that mean for PC culture or some of the posters here )

* For interests sake we now use a technique called PCI instead of thrombolysis for myocardial infarcts. Not that this takes anything away from the study

You take issue with the notion that white people are sometimes racist, but you're fine with the idea that black people are dumber than whites?

I've really been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt while reading through your posts, but I think it's time for you to take a long look at what you really believe here.

Where is your proof that white people are not admitting non-whites to Oxbridge because of racism?
Bearing in mind the success stories of London schools in getting minorities into Oxbridge:
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...pton-manor-41-students-offered-oxbridge-place
Or even scholarships to Eton (although this was more based on his rowing talents rather than academic achievements):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...te-school-lands-Eton-College-scholarship.html

-----

Taking it back to science, we have research that investigates brain volume differences (in this case between Chinese and Caucasian populations) concluding that:

After analyzing the volumes of all the 56 structures in the two groups, we found that in some regions, the Chinese and Caucasian brain were significantly different in volume (p<0.01) (Table 3). These differences included the left middle orbitofrontal gyrus, left gyrus rectus, left precuneus, left middle temporal gyrus, left parahippocampal gyrus, left cingulated gyrus, left lateral orbitofrontal gyrus, left superior parietal gyrus, left middle occipital gyrus, left inferior temporal gyrus, left insular cortex, left insular cortex, left putamen, right superior frontal gyrus, right precentral gyrus, right lateral orbitofrontal gyrus, right gyrus rectus, right postcentral gyrus, right precuneus, right superior occipital gyrus, right middle occipital gyrus, right superior temporal gyrus, right middle temporal gyrus,right inferior temporal gyrus, right parahippocampal gyrus, right insular cortex, right caudate and right putamen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862912/

and we really, honestly believe this is likely irrelevant in any potential difference in intelligence?

 

[TexRex]

For example the first result for "intelligence definition" on Google is:

the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Something I don't agree with, especially when comparing populations.

This bit looks an awful lot like "What I think isn't supported by this definition, so the definition must not be correct."

Coincidentally (or rather whatever the exact opposite of coincidence is), I think the definition is appropriate. If there's a flaw, it's that it's spectacularly broad...but then perhaps that isn't a flaw at all and lends to the notion that the definition of intelligence is spectacularly broad.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This bit looks an awful lot like "What I think isn't supported by this definition, so the definition must not be correct."

Coincidentally (or rather whatever the exact opposite of coincidence is), I think the definition is appropriate. If there's a flaw, it's that it's spectacularly broad...but then perhaps that isn't a flaw at all and lends to the notion that the definition of intelligence is spectacularly broad.

It's interesting because I think what it's describing is something other than intelligence, but I'm not sure there's currently a word that describes it.

To use my dad again as an example again, you won't find a better mechanic. His intuition, ingenuity and skill are second to none. He's able to "acquire and apply knowledge and skills" like no-one else - but that's when talking about particular knowledge and skills. He's black and from Jamaica and I hold him in the highest esteem but I wouldn't call him intelligent. I'm in awe at how he can remember details about classic Volvo's and apply that when working on them or other cars but I know he wouldn't score highly in an IQ test.

Switch to me and he would readily say I'm more intelligent than he is, based on my skillset and knowledge. The catch is I'm nowhere near as good a mechanic as he is, despite having significant exposure to a garage. I'm also useless with doing things around the house. I can't see things the way he does, and I lack the common sense that comes naturally to him. In dealing with a car, things that will be barn-door obvious to him will bemuse me. You could argue that certain things like using wood to support an alloy sump engine instead of a solid metal jack would be the intelligent thing to do, and I wouldn't disagree but I'd put the caveat that it is more a colloquism of the term rather than literal.

For me intelligence has a more narrow definition, but I haven't put the legwork into finding which one I'm comfortable with.

 

[huskeR32]

Where is your proof that white people are not admitting non-whites to Oxbridge because of racism?

I never claimed they were, though history certainly suggests white people are more than capable of such behavior.

However, I don't really see any compelling reasons to believe that one race is inherently more intelligent than another.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I never claimed they were, though history certainly suggests white people are more than capable of such behavior.

However, I don't really see any compelling reasons to believe that one race is inherently more intelligent than another.

I'm not sure I follow - you were quoting me replying to a post about racial discrimination at Oxbridge colleges?

 

[huskeR32]

I'm not sure I follow - you were quoting me replying to a post about racial discrimination at Oxbridge colleges?

Right, but I'm not the person who made the claim about Oxbridge, I simply commented on your response to the person who did make that claim.

 

[TexRex]

It's interesting because I think what it's describing is something other than intelligence, but I'm not sure there's currently a word that describes it.

Right, but I'm not the person who made the claim about Oxbridge, I simply commented on your response to the person who did make that claim.

While I don't disapprove of this response, I'm compelled to note that I didn't actually make such a claim, rather that I suggested racism as being among others' reasons for exclusion.

 

[Danoff]

Switch to me and he would readily say I'm more intelligent than he is, based on my skillset and knowledge. The catch is I'm nowhere near as good a mechanic as he is, despite having significant exposure to a garage. I'm also useless with doing things around the house. I can't see things the way he does, and I lack the common sense that comes naturally to him. In dealing with a car, things that will be barn-door obvious to him will bemuse me. You could argue that certain things like using wood to support an alloy sump engine instead of a solid metal jack would be the intelligent thing to do, and I wouldn't disagree but I'd put the caveat that it is more a colloquism of the term rather than literal.

Maybe he's just intelligent in different ways than you. That does seem to clear this up.

 

[TexRex]

Maybe he's just intelligent in different ways than you. That does seem to clear this up.

Or more educated in different ways. Or more experienced in different ways. Neither of which can be traced to genetics.

 

[huskeR32]

View attachment 810592


While I don't disapprove of this response, I'm compelled to note that I didn't actually make such a claim, rather that I suggested racism as being among others' reasons for exclusion.

Right, I merely meant to say that the comment he was contorting into an extreme version of itself was not originally mine. I knew you were more than capable of correcting things, if you so desired.

At the end of the day, I want him to analyze what might make a person simultaneously so sure that black folks are dumb, and also have knee-jerk defensivenss to the idea of white racism. However, if you’re looking for my breath, I’m not holding it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

At the end of the day, I want him to analyze what might make a person simultaneously so sure that black folks are dumb, and also have knee-jerk defensivenss to the idea of white racism. However, if you’re looking for my breath, I’m not holding it.

The thing is it's not a knee-jerk reflex - it's a response to the initial idea presented (that Oxbridge exclude on the basis of race).

Of course I know white-racism exists:
1. My mum (half Sri Lankan/Irish) was told at school by a white girl that she didn't want "a n***** on her netball team" (weird I know, but what can I say, that girl must have had a limited vocabulary. When the girl realised my mum was good at netball she asked the teacher for her to be on the team )
2. My sister was called "a black b****" by a white Polish girl when she worked at a bar
3. My uncle and his children were laughed at for eating KFC by a white South African

You may note that I'm not in that list. While I admit I've been racially profiled by the police, I wouldn't call that racism (though some would disagree with this). I have been the victim though of racism from the Asian community, most notably my girlfriend's family.

So in summary, yes I acknowledge white racism, and non-white racism exists - I just don't think it was especially relevant when talking about admission to Oxbridge (for god sake a black MP was voted in as Oxford Union president when he studied there).

I'd also put it to you and others to analyse why, according to that study Danoff's video cited and that I brought up at the top of the page, those least likely to have inherent bias are more likely to have anti-white bias when making clinical decisions.

Maybe he's just intelligent in different ways than you. That does seem to clear this up.

Eh....I dunno. I think there would have to be a word in front of it like when we say "football IQ" or "emotional intelligence".

This discussion does make me think though....

In a totem pole of intelligence, if we had myself, Stephen Fry and Stephen Hawking undoubtedly the majority of you would put both the Stephens much higher up than myself yet how would we differentiate between the two at the top?

 

[TexRex]

The thing is it's not a knee-jerk reflex - it's a response to the initial idea presented (that Oxbridge exclude on the basis of race).

Of course I know white-racism exists:
1. My mum (half Sri Lankan/Irish) was told at school by a white girl that she didn't want "a n***** on her netball team" (weird I know, but what can I say, that girl must have had a limited vocabulary. When the girl realised my mum was good at netball she asked the teacher for her to be on the team )
2. My sister was called "a black b****" by a white Polish girl when she worked at a bar
3. My uncle and his children were laughed at for eating KFC by a white South African

You may note that I'm not in that list. While I admit I've been racially profiled by the police, I wouldn't call that racism (though some would disagree with this). I have been the victim though of racism from the Asian community, most notably my girlfriend's family.

So in summary, yes I acknowledge white racism, and non-white racism exists - I just don't think it was especially relevant when talking about admission to Oxbridge (for god sake a black MP was voted in as Oxford Union president when he studied there).

I'd also put it to you and others to analyse why, according to that study Danoff's video cited and that I brought up at the top of the page, those least likely to have inherent bias are more likely to have anti-white bias when making clinical decisions.


Eh....I dunno. I think there would have to be a word in front of it like when we say "football IQ" or "emotional intelligence".

This discussion does make me think though....

In a totem pole of intelligence, if we had myself, Stephen Fry and Stephen Hawking undoubtedly the majority of you would put both the Stephens much higher up than myself yet how would we differentiate between the two at the top?

So, yeah, this obviously bears repeating...

If you can't define intelligence, you can't quantify it, and if you can't quantify intelligence, you have no basis for establishing one supposed group's superiority or inferiority.

Simples.

Methods employed by higher education establishments for evaluating prospective students at absolute best, which is to exclude preferential or discriminatory practices, simply determine one's potential to continue education which often concludes with a focus toward a specific field of study.

If you want to begin to attribute a degree of intelligence based on genetic make-up, you first need to devise a method of measuring actual intelligence--not simply aptitude--that can be implemented equally across all prospective candidates regardless of where they live and what language they speak. Of course this method should disregard prior education and experience as neither have anything to do with genetic predisposition. But you can't devise a measure of intelligence until you can define intelligence (again, not to be confused with aptitude), and thus far you haven't shown you can do that.

So stow the strawmen, m'kay?

 

[Danoff]

In a totem pole of intelligence, if we had myself, Stephen Fry and Stephen Hawking undoubtedly the majority of you would put both the Stephens much higher up than myself yet how would we differentiate between the two at the top?

That seems like a question that's much tougher for someone with a narrow view of intelligence to answer and defend than it is for someone with a broader view of intelligence to answer and defend. I wouldn't try to differentiate between them. I don't feel the need to rank people based on intelligence, as comparing the different manifestations of intelligence has very little meaning. Once again, if you broaden your view of intelligence, you're less inclined to ask this particular question, because you'll fail to see the point.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That seems like a question that's much tougher for someone with a narrow view of intelligence to answer and defend than it is for someone with a broader view of intelligence to answer and defend. I wouldn't try to differentiate between them. I don't feel the need to rank people based on intelligence, as comparing the different manifestations of intelligence has very little meaning. Once again, if you broaden your view of intelligence, you're less inclined to ask this particular question, because you'll fail to see the point.

Yeah it wasn't rhetorical it was a genuine question! I do generally throw stuff out there that weakens my argument but adds balance

But I am right in assuming most of the people here would consider both of them to have higher intelligence than myself if asked a direct question wouldn't you agree?

Maybe I'm assuming too much.... (I hear you TexRex)

So, yeah, this obviously bears repeating...

If you can't define intelligence, you can't quantify it, and if you can't quantify intelligence, you have no basis for establishing one supposed group's superiority or inferiority.

Simples.

Methods employed by higher education establishments for evaluating prospective students at absolute best, which is to exclude preferential or discriminatory practices, simply determine one's potential to continue education which often concludes with a focus toward a specific field of study.

If you want to begin to attribute a degree of intelligence based on genetic make-up, you first need to devise a method of measuring actual intelligence--not simply aptitude--that can be implemented equally across all prospective candidates regardless of where they live and what language they speak. Of course this method should disregard prior education and experience as neither have anything to do with genetic predisposition. But you can't devise a measure of intelligence until you can define intelligence (again, not to be confused with aptitude), and thus far you haven't shown you can do that.

So stow the strawmen, m'kay?

So I would combine different things if I went into this field, for example how peers perform when in the same field (e.g. medicine, law) + IQ scores + literacy measurements (e.g. in the form of essays) + situational judgement tests etc etc.

Those are the sort of variables I'd test in comparing intelligence.

Talking about exclusions, would I include a spatial awareness test? Probably not. While useful in intellectually demanding roles such as such as surgery I don't think it would fit in what is classically defined as intelligence.

* Is there a recognised test for ingenuity? Quick google comes up with this: http://barryispuzzled.com/PITS
But I doubt it's used in formal studies

 

[TexRex]

So I would combine different things if I went into this field, for example how peers perform when in the same field (e.g. medicine, law) + IQ scores + literacy measurements (e.g. in the form of essays) + situational judgement tests etc etc.

Those are the sort of variables I'd test in comparing intelligence.

But you're trying to suggest a correlation between intelligence and genetics, not simply comparing two educated individuals' intelligence.

Say...I wonder what sort health issues I should be concerned about as determined by whatever degree of intelligence I've demonstrated while taking part in this discussion.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah it wasn't rhetorical it was a genuine question! I do generally throw stuff out there that weakens my argument but adds balance

But I am right in assuming most of the people here would consider both of them to have higher intelligence than myself if asked a direct question wouldn't you agree?

It's very hard to compare the two Stephens, and it's hard to compare them to you. Partly because I don't know you that well, but also because you're all very different. The best I could do is try to compare them to contemporaries in their field. It's possible that I could make an argument that says something like "Stephen Hawking has outperformed his contemporaries in his field more than Henry Swanson has outperformed his contemporaries in his field". But what would be the point?

Stephen Hawking was brilliant. Stephen Fry is as well. We know that partly based on what they did compared to what others who were trying to do what they did did. That's all we really need to know right?

 

[HenrySwanson]

But you're trying to suggest a correlation between intelligence and genetics, not simply comparing two educated individuals' intelligence.

Say...I wonder what sort health issues I should be concerned about as determined by whatever degree of intelligence I've demonstrated while taking part in this discussion.

You asked about quantifying it, I gave a suggestion.

But what would be the point?

I'm not sure, and this goes back to I think it was Liquid's post earlier on.

Say we found out there was a difference in intelligence between ethnicities, what would we do with that information? Would it just be for argument's sake and to say "I told you so"? Or could it be used for good in some way such as bringing African countries up to a morally acceptable level. Or would it lead to discrimination and marginalisation....

Let's all remember this came from James Watson's comments that there may be a difference in intelligence between ethnicities, and that this could be the reason behind the lack of development of sub-Saharan nations

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure, and this goes back to I think it was Liquid's post earlier on.

Say we found out there was a difference in intelligence between ethnicities, what would we do with that information? Would it just be for argument's sake and to say "I told you so"? Or could it be used for good in some way such as bringing African countries up to a morally acceptable level. Or would it lead to discrimination and marginalisation....

Dan: "This seems impossible and pointless, why would you want to do it?"
Henry: "Because what if you did? Then what would you do?"

 

[HenrySwanson]

Dan: "This seems impossible and pointless, why would you want to do it?"
Henry: "Because what if you did? Then what would you do?"

This did all start from me defending James Watson's comments that there may be a difference in intelligence between ethnicities, and that this could be the reason behind the lack of development of sub-Saharan nations.

I still remain unconvinced that I was wrong for standing up for his right to say that.

 

[Danoff]

This did all start from me defending James Watson's comments that there may be a difference in intelligence between ethnicities, and that this could be the reason behind the lack of development of sub-Saharan nations.

I still remain unconvinced that I was wrong for standing up for his right to say that.

Well anyone has a right to say anything (even yelling fire in a crowded theater). You were doing more than that, you were trying to claim that he was right, or at least this his argument had merit. You seem very attached to this notion, and I don't understand why. Why do you need to explain lack of development anywhere in the world with genetics? You can find poorly-developed nations of all flavors, and usually you'll find a common denominator - a lack of human rights. Where rights are observed, humanity thrives.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Well anyone has a right to say anything (even yelling fire in a crowded theater). You were doing more than that, you were trying to claim that he was right, or at least this his argument had merit. You seem very attached to this notion, and I don't understand why. Why do you need to explain lack of development anywhere in the world with genetics? You can find poorly-developed nations of all flavors, and usually you'll find a common denominator - a lack of human rights. Where rights are observed, humanity thrives.

I think we don't know for sure but I believe his hypothesis has merit (that there is variation).

 

[Danoff]

I think we don't know for sure but I believe his hypothesis has merit (that there is variation).

But you can't articulate why.

You started out by saying that you knew there was a difference (IQ). I think at this point you agree that there is more to intelligence than what IQ measures. So I think all you have left is the instinct that it couldn't possibly be different because what are the odds that it's the same? I've pointed out that there are lots of things about all flavors of humanity that are the same. We follow roughly the same structure, it's part of why we're all identified as a single species. So while you could find different populations (using a variety of different characteristic binning techniques) that might have variations in particular traits, why must you assume that there is a broad difference in mental capacity associated with a particular set of traits within the same species. That kind of claim should require a great deal of evidence to support.

 

[TexRex]

You asked about quantifying it, I gave a suggestion.

Sure, a suggestion for comparing two educated individuals who share a field of study. Maybe you can understand my confusion.

Remember, you're trying to demonstrate a correlation between genetics and intelligence, so you need to define actual intelligence (again, not aptitude) and then figure out a way of measuring it that doesn't favor those who speak a certain language or who have a certain amount of education, because neither of those are genetic.

This did all start from me defending James Watson's comments that there may be a difference in intelligence between ethnicities, and that this could be the reason behind the lack of development of sub-Saharan nations.

But how do you expect to accomplish this goal if you can't define intelligence? Did Watson define intelligence in making his comments?

I still remain unconvinced that I was wrong for standing up for his right to say that.

Do you mean to say that this whole time you've mistaken "right to say" for "exempt from ridicule"?

I believe his hypothesis has merit (that there is variation).

Based...on...what? "Because there's variation in other characteristics"?

 

[HenrySwanson]

But you can't articulate why.

You started out by saying that you knew there was a difference (IQ). I think at this point you agree that there is more to intelligence than what IQ measures. So I think all you have left is the instinct that it couldn't possibly be different because what are the odds that it's the same? I've pointed out that there are lots of things about all flavors of humanity that are the same. We follow roughly the same structure, it's part of why we're all identified as a single species. So while you could find different populations (using a variety of different characteristic binning techniques) that might have variations in particular traits, why must you assume that there is a broad difference in mental capacity associated with a particular set of traits within the same species. That kind of claim should require a great deal of evidence to support.

You mention things that we are the same in but why do you suppose intelligence fits into that? I see no evidence how this could be the case, considering the main (only?) driver is the brain - something that is different between the ethnicities.

Sure, a suggestion for comparing two educated individuals who share a field of study. Maybe you can understand my confusion.

Remember, you're trying to demonstrate a correlation between genetics and intelligence, so you need to define actual intelligence (again, not aptitude) and then figure out a way of measuring it that doesn't favor those who speak a certain language or who have a certain amount of education, because neither of those are genetic.


But how do you expect to accomplish this goal if you can't define intelligence? Did Watson define intelligence in making his comments?


Do you mean to say that this whole time you've mistaken "right to say" for "exempt from ridicule"?


Based...on...what? "Because there's variation in other characteristics"?

No-ones exempt from ridicule, but the backlash was disproportionate to the comments. Your last point makes me question if you've been following my points about the differences in intelligence and other variables so I'll add more:

You would all agree (I hope) that medicine requires a certain standard of intelligence, something more than just IQ tests.
Looking at this data of acceptance rates for medical schools in the US we see something we've seen before

Broken down into MCAT and GPA scores we see that at the average score, Asians are the least likely to be accepted, whites the next group with blacks the most likely. Now where have we seen this lately? It is of course the same as the Harvard admissions scandal, with the ethnicities ordered in exactly the same way.

Still not enough?

In 2005 two researchers looked at multiple papers examining intelligence. This was their finding:

"The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black–White differences in mean IQ"

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

"But IQ isn't the only marker for intelligence and is inherently biased" - I hear you say.

Maybe, so what happens when we test reaction times in children, a test that can't be biased due to its simplicity:

"Reaction time is one of the simplest culture-free cognitive measures. Mostreaction time tasks are so easy that 9- to 12-year-old children can perform them in less than 1 s. But even on these very simple tests, children with higher IQ scores perform faster than do children with lower scores, perhaps because reaction timemeasures the neurophysiological efficiency of the brain’s capacity to processinformation accurately—the same ability measured by intelligence tests"

The results by ethnicity?

"...East Asians faster than Whites faster than Blacks"

I do find it odd that people are claiming that there's no evidence, yet all the evidence seems to point to variation.

 

[Danoff]

You mention things that we are the same in but why do you suppose intelligence fits into that?

Well... because we all have brains, and they all function similarly. I'm not asserting that if intelligence could be quantified (which currently it can't) that I know for sure that it would be quantified exactly the same way across all "ethnicities". I'm saying that it's not enough to look at it and say "it can't possibly be the same". Because of course it can, lots of things can.

I see no evidence how this could be the case, considering the main (only?) driver is the brain - something that is different between the ethnicities.
...
I do find it odd that people are claiming that there's no evidence, yet all the evidence seems to point to variation.

Variation in... in.... in..... ?

I'll agree with you that there is evidence of variation in MCAT scores, maybe even in certain reaction time tests. Do you think this constitutes "intelligence"?

 

[PocketZeven]

You mention things that we are the same in but why do you suppose intelligence fits into that? I see no evidence how this could be the case, considering the main (only?) driver is the brain - something that is different between the ethnicities.


No-ones exempt from ridicule, but the backlash was disproportionate to the comments. Your last point makes me question if you've been following my points about the differences in intelligence and other variables so I'll add more:

You would all agree (I hope) that medicine requires a certain standard of intelligence, something more than just IQ tests.
Looking at this data of acceptance rates for medical schools in the US we see something we've seen before

Broken down into MCAT and GPA scores we see that at the average score, Asians are the least likely to be accepted, whites the next group with blacks the most likely. Now where have we seen this lately? It is of course the same as the Harvard admissions scandal, with the ethnicities ordered in exactly the same way.

Still not enough?

In 2005 two researchers looked at multiple papers examining intelligence. This was their finding:

"The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black–White differences in mean IQ"

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

"But IQ isn't the only marker for intelligence and is inherently biased" - I hear you say.

Maybe, so what happens when we test reaction times in children, a test that can't be biased due to its simplicity:

"Reaction time is one of the simplest culture-free cognitive measures. Mostreaction time tasks are so easy that 9- to 12-year-old children can perform them in less than 1 s. But even on these very simple tests, children with higher IQ scores perform faster than do children with lower scores, perhaps because reaction timemeasures the neurophysiological efficiency of the brain’s capacity to processinformation accurately—the same ability measured by intelligence tests"

The results by ethnicity?

"...East Asians faster than Whites faster than Blacks"

I do find it odd that people are claiming that there's no evidence, yet all the evidence seems to point to variation.

I think your dicussion should be more focused on defining intelligence before proclaiming that intelligence is related to ethnicity.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Well... because we all have brains, and they all function similarly.

And yet I've provided evidence that brains aren't the same between ethnicities and they don't all function similarly according to different criteria.

Variation in... in.... in..... ?

What the general public perceives as intelligence.

I'll agree with you that there is evidence of variation in MCAT scores, maybe even in certain reaction time tests. Do you think this constitutes "intelligence"?

I think they are factors/results of intelligence, yes.

I think your dicussion should be more focused on defining intelligence before proclaiming that intelligence is related to ethnicity.

I adressed how we might test this in a previous post. Feel free to disagree with this method of testing. A definition I would subscribe to would be inclusive of the things tested for.

-----

I also came up with the words I was struggling with in previous posts when comparing certain facets of intelligence and I would say that they were parts of "problem solving intelligence"

 

[Danoff]

And yet I've provided evidence that brains aren't the same between ethnicities and they don't all function similarly according to different criteria.

Eh... not quite. Just because someone performs differently on an IQ test doesn't mean that their brain isn't the same physiological organ as someone else's. It could simply mean that their brain adapted to their environment differently because it was in a different environment.

But also, even if you could find a predisposition for a brain to adapt in a certain way for a certain ethnicity regardless of environment (which you haven't), you would still have only an example of a difference, not evidence of a general difference. Not all differences ultimately matter.

What the general public perceives as intelligence.

Which is a really really weird thing to say. What does the general public perceive as intelligence and why on earth does that actually matter? Oh and when? What the general public perceived as intelligence in the 1600s? How about the 1950s?

I think they are factors/results of intelligence, yes.

I asked if you think it constitutes "intelligence", not whether it was a factor or component of intelligence, or a manifestation of a flavor of intelligence.

I also came up with the words I was struggling with in previous posts when comparing certain facets of intelligence and I would say that they were parts of "problem solving intelligence"

Still too broad to encompass an IQ test. Problem solving could be interpersonal social problem solving based on emotional states of individuals. Helping a psychological trauma victim recover, for example, is problem solving. But it doesn't fit well into an IQ test.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Eh... not quite. Just because someone performs differently on an IQ test doesn't mean that their brain isn't the same physiological organ as someone else's. It could simply mean that their brain adapted to their environment differently because it was in a different environment.

I dunno. In the study I linked to some of the studies made allowances for environment

But also, even if you could find a predisposition for a brain to adapt in a certain way for a certain ethnicity regardless of environment (which you haven't), you would still have only an example of a difference, not evidence of a general difference. Not all differences ultimately matter.

As above, in the analysis that looked at multiple studies there was a difference.

Which is a really really weird thing to say. What does the general public perceive as intelligence and why on earth does that actually matter? Oh and when? What the general public perceived as intelligence in the 1600s? How about the 1950s?

So if we asked the general public - who do you believe to be more intelligent: the average cleaner or the average neurosurgeon, you would consider the results redundant??

I asked if you think it constitutes "intelligence", not whether it was a factor or component of intelligence, or a manifestation of a flavor of intelligence.

I believe so yes (that it constitutes intelligence), which is based on my experience in the medical field in the UK

Still too broad to encompass an IQ test. Problem solving could be interpersonal social problem solving based on emotional states of individuals. Helping a psychological trauma victim recover, for example, is problem solving. But it doesn't fit well into an IQ test.

Which could be one part of general intelligence. As I said before my testing would encompass more than an IQ test

 

[Danoff]

I dunno. In the study I linked to some of the studies made allowances for environment

If you say so.

As above, in the analysis that looked at multiple studies there was a difference.

"A difference" was exactly what I said was insufficient.

So if we asked the general public - who do you believe to be more intelligent: the average cleaner or the average neurosurgeon, you would consider the results redundant??

Why does it matter? And again, this is something that changes over time... which time period is correct?

I believe so yes (that it constitutes intelligence), which is based on my experience in the medical field in the UK

Why? Why does one's MCAT score constitute intelligence?

Which could be one part of general intelligence. As I said before my testing would encompass more than an IQ test

Well I'm glad you're moving in the right direction at least.