Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 12

message: I have personally witnessed peer pressure in American black females, sapping the motivation to excel in an intellectual task (i.e., learning how to use a computer to do office work). And if I, a white man with no sociological credentials or exceptional observational skills could detect this, how much more might there be? Let's look at social psychology. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 02:27 (UTC)
:I suspect such peer pressure comes from those that lack mental talent. They view anyone that can excel mentally as a threat to their ego. When you're part of a group that is dominated by such people, the peer pressure is going to be enormous. It must be hell to be gifted and black and surrounded by morons. Perhaps peer pressure is acting to magnify what would be smaller difference between black and white.
::Why would it be any less hellish to be gifted and white and surrounded by morons? I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there are real reasons why gifted black people in the US have a more corrosive set of interactions.
::Both sex and power are powerful motivating factors in most primate species. One of my colleagues observed that freshman women are, as a group, much more willing to enter into classroom discussions than are senior women. His explanation was that if women demonstrated an intimidating degree of intelligence then they were less likely to get dates. Similarly, people (male or female) who are driven to dominate others are hindered when other people in the group exhibit superior intelligence. Rather than improve their own abilities the expedient thing seems, to many people, to be to "put a stop on" those demonstrations of intelligence. Add to this already potent mix the perception that there exists a state of quasi-war among [racial] groups, and a demand to "stop trying to act like the enemy" can function to inhibit exercise of intelligence in the group setting. 
::The main reason, as I see it, for even having a university is the environment it creates for interpersonal reactions. (Some of the same kind of thing happens in these discussion pages, but it can be less effective because of the turn-around time and the tendency to say too much at one time, leading people to get off the track.) If social factors inhibit individuals from taking advantage of the learning environments they find themselves in, then they are left to their own devices to make progress, and that progress is likely to be much inhibited. 
::Whether there are "small differences between blacks and whites" as a group or not, there are always differences among individuals. Individuals tend to sort themselves into groups that can talk to each other about topics that are significant to themselves. One of the characteristics of extreme intelligence (such as demonstrated, I suspect, by Malcolm X) is that one will figure out for oneself that one is being held back by one's group members and will act to escape from those inhibiting forces. The people of average intelligence and average courage may be less able to escape. So what is the salient difference between groups of blacks and groups of whites, assuming that we match the groups we are comparing? It would seem to be the relationship of the individuals in each group to the background social situation. P0M 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expectations of peers / society at large

message: I tried to summarize the Average intelligence gaps among races section. Futher work is needed, and the notes need to be reconciled. --Rikurzhen 21:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Brilliant work. Reads really well. And I'm happy to see the income/parental education graphs back. Arbor 08:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary progress 

message: Here are the justifications for the edits I made last night, which were reverted by ZM with no accompanying Talk entry.  I have reinstated them.  Kindly do not revert without discussion.
First, the section formerly titled "IQ, race and public policy" actually does not mention policy until the very end; the bulk of the text concerns the significance of IQ disparities.  I have retitled the section to reflect that.  
Second, because policy remains an interesting area, and is distinct from discussions of significance, I have promoted it to a section.
Third, the last paragraph of the Significance section, regarding Jewish accomplishment, was re-written to better reflect the facts and to remove irrelevant (and speculative) material about the sources of income disparity.  The edits were reverted without comment (the only entry was "last 2 edits reverted", which did not include this edit).
:Another recent reversion  also bears comment.  The edit commentary "No consensus that IQ is very important for income" is consistent with the deletion of the income content.  The income-related content in the sentence at issue appears entirely speculative.  I've improved the sentence regarding science.  If it's really necessary to justify the statement that science is a high-IQ occupation for which g has a high predictive validity (what it means to be g-loaded), see Herrnstein and Murray p.100 (social scientists, natural scientists, mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists all listed as "high-IQ occupations"), Gottfredson 1997 Table 1 (biologist = high-complexity profession for which g has a high predictive validity), Gottfredson 2005  Figure 15.1 (chemist and engineer both shown with mean IQ more than 1sd above average).  I can get more, but these should be more than sufficient. --DAD T 18:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformulated as that many of policies already advocated for other reasons as being economic would in addition have a beneficial effect on IQ. Ultramarine 18:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, the Copenhagen consensus link is speculative.  In the article, it now comes across as off-topic: "may have a large scale effect" (on what is left for the reader to fill in -- the implication "on cognitive function" continues to be speculative).  Also, I can find no mention of iodine in the Copenhagen consensus page, yet iodine is specifically called out as having a cognitive benefit as if Copenhagen recommended it.  This has raised my skeptic's hackles.  Either find a specific Copenhagen/iodine link or keep the two separate. --DAD T 18:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Iodine is mentioned 7 times in Copenhagen consensus paper. Use search. Ultramarine 19:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sold.  This helped: direct reference to lack of iodine and iron in lower intelligence as well (p.2), which makes the CC material directly relevant.  Not sure why this wasn't included before.  I'll update the article accordingly. --DAD T 19:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass reversions 

message: since the summary doesn't include any citations, i'll leave it to the interested to do something with it. --Rikurzhen 17:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:We should move the material to genetic vs culture since all the material is about that, will do it soon. Ultramarine 18:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary