Pages

Jump to bottom

24 comments

1 Gus  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 11:49:38am

It seems to me that the strange point that Howard Portnoy at Hot Air is making is that why if the left is quick to embrace science how come the left is resistant to accept "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" given that it was endorsed by 51 university professors in 1994. Mr. Portnoy goes on to say that research in "the theory supporting a connection between race and intelligence has gained even wider acceptance."

This of course is a false observation and that the connection "between race and intelligence" is highly challenged in the scientific community. Portnoy is essentially agreeing with a general conclusion that black are inferior to whites on intelligence and ignoring the contesting science that questions these conclusions. You are missing an important paragraph though that reveals the inherint racism in Mr. Portnoy's blog at Hot Air:

"These findings are troublesome for a political party that would choose to coddle one of its most loyal voter blocs rather than expose them to the truth. They are also a tough pill to swallow for blacks, who have been reassured repeatedly that their below-average test scores are the product of years of systematic oppression or cultural bias in the test, not some inborn limitation. If one wanted to be really cruel, one might even accuse Democrats and blacks of rejecting scientific findings when they complicate their ideological worldview."

Rather repulsive if you ask me. This is a new low for Hot Air.

2 Gus  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 12:12:10pm

Here's his Twitter account: Howard Portnoy @NYConservativ

3 avanti  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 12:19:56pm

One comment on the thread seems to indicate that the racism runs rampant in some:

"And democrats are not that funny. Anyway, the multibillion dollar close-the-racial-gaps industry makes a good living for too many people and it is the best sort of problem industry: it has no solution, and the grants will keep coming even when everyone knows why (but dares not say) it has no solution. One just shuts up and tries to join the lucrative taxpayer supported party. Cheers.

Chessplayer on September 1, 2011 at 2:27 PM '

My translation: the democrats are wasting tax money trying to help the genetically inferior non-whites and the GOP could save tax dollars by not bothering to try and give minorities help since it's a waste of money.

4 aagcobb  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 12:49:02pm

"I'll accept the example of nuclear power to a degree"

Given what recently happened in Japan, I have a hard time viewing opposition to nuclear power as "anti-science."

5 Jaerik  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 1:27:50pm

Hot Air is seriously reaching to imply that the left is just as anti-science as the right.

That being said, there are some groups on the left that are just as nuts as the anti-evolution, climate change denying crowd. In particular, the vaccines-cause-autism and peach-pits-cure-cancer nuts, all of whom continue to receive top billing at places like the Huffington Post.

6 freetoken  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 1:47:33pm

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier about this:

The far-right/reactionary-right is now in full undress, as regards race, as far as I am concerned.

Note how HotWingnuts is now going into full VDARE mode, e.g., latest article in their Green-snot room:

The Other “Anti-Science” Party

From the NRO to HotWingnuts, the views of Buchanan, Brimelow, and the like are now the status quo.

7 Idle Drifter  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 2:12:17pm

re: #4 aagcobb

"I'll accept the example of nuclear power to a degree"

Given what recently happened in Japan, I have a hard time viewing opposition to nuclear power as "anti-science."

I have no problem with Nuclear Power. I do have a problem when people half ass the location, construction, maintenance, operation, and disposal of waste. Opposing out of fear and ignorance is anti-science.

8 lostlakehiker  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 2:37:32pm
I guess as a leftie, I do reject the concept that skin color is a factor in IQ, and not cultural factors.

What cultural factor would account for the similarity in test scores of identical twins separated at birth and raised on different continents?

9 avanti  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 2:57:08pm

re: #8 lostlakehiker

What cultural factor would account for the similarity in test scores of identical twins separated at birth and raised on different continents?

No question IQ has genetic component and I should have been clearer to make the point that it does not have a blanket racial one. As to the twins, I suspect if one was raised in poverty, it would score lower than one that was not.

10 Charleston Chew  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 4:07:21pm

I can't comment on this until someone defines for me the following terms:

"whites", "blacks", "Asians", "Jews", "Hispanics", and "intelligence".

11 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 4:16:11pm

re: #8 lostlakehiker

What cultural factor would account for the similarity in test scores of identical twins separated at birth and raised on different continents?

Twin studies are so few and far between, and so statistically variable, as to be basically meaningless.

Nobody doubts there are numerous genetic components to intelligence. It's obvious; variablility of ability is always going to be partially genetic.

That is not at all going to mean that a 'race'-- which is not a scientific term anyway-- is going to have a bias towards being 'more' or 'less' intelligent.

We don't even have a coherent understanding of what 'intelligence' is. Is it problem-solving? Is it abstract reasoning?

I personally can read a 300 page book in a few hours, and retain almost all of the information contained therin as long as it's not a techncial subject I know little about. Is that 'intelligence' on my part? It certainly has always helped me get very good scores on tests.

And again: twin studies are inherently massively problematic, and using them as support for your argument is never a good idea.

12 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 4:20:47pm

Here's a good start on why twin studies are more problematic than they are revealing.

[Link: www.tim-taylor.com...]

13 aagcobb  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 5:01:52pm

re: #7 Idle Drifter

I have no problem with Nuclear Power. I do have a problem when people half ass the location, construction, maintenance, operation, and disposal of waste. Opposing out of fear and ignorance is anti-science.

Until you can build a meltdown proof nuclear plant, I think fear is a perfectly appropriate reason to oppose them. As the East Coast quake shows, there is nowhere on the North American Continent which is immune to the kind of natural disaster which struck Japan.

14 palomino  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 5:30:27pm

Here's the problem: Portnoy proposes no solution to the alleged IQ gap, nor does he tell us the horrible ramifications of ignoring this gap if it actually exists. OTOH, climatologists have made it quite clear what the effects of ignoring global warming will be.

Portnoy wants to create the appearance of hypocrisy on the left for not admitting his racial (pseudo) science. But his whole question is a big "so what"? Even if his IQ research is correct, why is it a pressing problem? It's a racial anamoly at most, not a threat to the planet's environmental stability.

15 Hal_10000  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 7:02:21pm

Really? He's digging up something from *1994*?! The science of IQ has moved SO FAR since then. There is now ample reason to believe that much of the IQ difference between blacks and white has to do with social conditions (black kids not having as much early exposure to computers and such).

Give me a break. This is worse than digging up "global cooling".

16 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 7:30:30pm

re: #15 Hal_10000

Hell, just making a black student identify themselves as black on a test hurts their score on the test. A lot of people would rather ignore shit like that.

17 lostlakehiker  Thu, Sep 1, 2011 10:07:42pm

re: #11 Obdicut

Twin studies are so few and far between, and so statistically variable, as to be basically meaningless.

Nobody doubts there are numerous genetic components to intelligence. It's obvious; variablility of ability is always going to be partially genetic.

That is not at all going to mean that a 'race'-- which is not a scientific term anyway-- is going to have a bias towards being 'more' or 'less' intelligent.

We don't even have a coherent understanding of what 'intelligence' is. Is it problem-solving? Is it abstract reasoning?

I personally can read a 300 page book in a few hours, and retain almost all of the information contained therin as long as it's not a techncial subject I know little about. Is that 'intelligence' on my part? It certainly has always helped me get very good scores on tests.

And again: twin studies are inherently massively problematic, and using them as support for your argument is never a good idea.

Twin studies establish very nicely that genetically identical individuals' IQ test scores are strongly correlated. They are as strongly correlated as test scores of the very same person taking another test on another day. Even when the twins are raised apart. In fact, raised together or raised apart, the correlation is pretty much the same.

There is nothing of quack science in this. It's just a demonstrated fact.

Oh, and the ability to read fast and understand and retain information is an important mental ability and is reflective of general intelligence. It's not the exact same thing---in any case, we don't have an exact definition of intelligence.

18 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 2, 2011 5:06:18am

re: #17 lostlakehiker

Twin studies establish very nicely that genetically identical individuals' IQ test scores are strongly correlated.

You didn't bother to read what I linked. You cannot say that twins are genetically identical, or saying such has little meaning. Genes are not always active; they are activated and deactivated by environmental responses. What you mean to be saying is that genetic similarity is correlated with IQ test scores, not genetic 'identicalness', which doesn't exist. For example-- and again, if you'd bothered to read what I'd linked, and actually educated yourself, you'd know this-- the natal environment of two twins is different for each of them, sometimes to a large degree. One receives the primary blood flow.

hey are as strongly correlated as test scores of the very same person taking another test on another day.

There have been too few studies of twins raised separately to make any sort of conclusion about them whatsoever. I assume you're using Bouchard as your source for that-- though how would I know, since, as usual, you don't cite a damn thing to back up your argument. There is nobody at all that doubts that intelligence has heritable factors, so all you're doing is stating a truism. Particular tests of 'intelligence' might show more or less of a correlation. If you use a test that's biased towards memory, for example, the heritability of it goes way up. If you test more social intelligence, it goes way down.

There is nothing of quack science in this. It's just a demonstrated fact.

I didn't say it was quack science. I said that the results are far too few-- of twins raised apart-- to be statistically meaningful. I have no idea why you misrepresented that as me saying it was 'quack science'.

If you honestly want to learn-- which based on your past behavior, I doubt that you do-- you should be able to confront the fact that studies done on twins and siblings inheritiblity have produced quite different results over time. If you read Plomin and DeFries(sp?) work, you'll see that the correlation between parent and child, and between fraternal twins, moved in opposite directions over time. Obviously, the genetic relationships of those groups didn't change, so why did the correlation?

You really seem to approach genetics in order to confirm your views, rather than to actually understand the subject. It's a pity, given that it's goddamn fascinating.

Oh, and the ability to read fast and understand and retain information is an important mental ability and is reflective of general intelligence. It's not the exact same thing---in any case, we don't have an exact definition of intelligence.

Exactly. So any claims about genetic heritability of intelligence have to be limited by what can be tested, or is being tested. Testing for certain forms of intelligence will show far greater heritability than others. So there is no statement that can be made about the heritability of intelligence rather than the obvious truism that there is some genetic heritability.

19 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 2, 2011 5:07:12am

> I do reject the concept that skin color is a factor in IQ

That's a rather silly strawman.

20 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 2, 2011 5:24:51am

Last time there has been a consensus paper by APA on the matter of intelligence and race (in the wake of The Bell Curve controversy), which was co-authored by that same Bouchard who is famous for the MZT studies, the paper stated that as of yet the genetic explanation of the average IQ gap between blacks and whites (which in itself is factual) has not been proven. It wasn't a lefty or righty paper either.

I see no conceptual problem with the racial component of IQ. It just doesn't seem to have been proven yet.

21 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 2, 2011 1:24:52pm

re: #20 Sergey Romanov

Well, and that 'race' doesn't really have any coherent meaning.

There's that problem, too.

22 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 2, 2011 1:54:22pm

re: #21 Obdicut

Just because there's no non-vague def of "race" doesn't mean that the term doesn't have a coherent meaning in certain contexts.

23 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 2, 2011 1:55:58pm

re: #22 Sergey Romanov

(Same as "species". You won't get a single def for all cases. Doesn't mean species don't exist.)

24 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 2, 2011 2:06:48pm

re: #22 Sergey Romanov

Just because there's no non-vague def of "race" doesn't mean that the term doesn't have a coherent meaning in certain contexts.

Then give one.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh