-->
@spacetime
Ok, I'll bite. For example?What if they're just impartially considering all the possible reasons why there are massive socioeconomic disparities between blacks and every other race?
Racism is a meaningless term
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@drafterman
I don't understand what you're asking for examples of.
It's a well-established fact that there are massive socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and literally every other ethnic group in the United States. It's perfectly plausible that the relatively low average IQ of African Americans could be part of the reason for that, and it isn't racist to honestly consider that possibility.
-->
@spacetime
Right, exactly. I want you to show me an example of someone impartially considering IQ disparity as a causal factor of massive socioeconomic disparity.
-->
@drafterman
Charles Murray, in his book The Bell Curve.
-->
@spacetime
Couple of things:
1. I don't have the book and can't read it. So what I say is glossed from online reviews and summaries, so feel free to correct. But the book doesn't appear to be saying that IQ -> socioeconomic disaprity, but rather IQ -> other factors (income, job performance, etc.) instead of socioeconomic disparities.
2. The book has been criticized for its use of "race science" and rather controversial sources for some of its information.
3. Let's be honest. Is this what you really think the OP is doing here? Balance of probabilities.
-->
@Tejretics
The problem, I think, is that IQ is a deeply flawed measure of intelligence constructed in a way that privileges people with other social and economic privilege. See, for instance, this:
The problem is you think IQ is a measure of innate intelligence and not current intelligence. IQ tests are fmpov one of the least biased, most accurate tests created.
These "flaws" are flaws in our view of intelligence, not the test itself.
That IQ improves the more you learn, as has been established for a looong time, is clear indication the test is not wholly a measure of innate intelligence, but one that measure current intelligence. For example, a baby would fail because they can't even take it. They obviously will be able to and thus are more intelligent than they were previously 🤔
-->
@drafterman
1. I don't have the book and can't read it. So what I say is glossed from online reviews and summaries, so feel free to correct. But the book doesn't appear to be saying that IQ -> socioeconomic disaprity, but rather IQ -> other factors (income, job performance, etc.) instead of socioeconomic disparities.
Differences in income and job performance would, by definition, play a role in the creation of socioeconomic disparities...
2. The book has been criticized for its use of "race science" and rather controversial sources for some of its information.
Even if it's true that the book contains some inaccurate information, that doesn't provide a rational basis for one to assume that Murray is a racist.
3. Let's be honest. Is this what you really think the OP is doing here? Balance of probabilities.
I honestly don't see how you can infer from what she wrote that she's a racist. Nothing she said indicated any sort of hostility towards black people.
Attributions of IQ to racial differences is only applicable insomuch that these differences aren't fully explainable by the aforementioned factors because those differences for the most part persist with minor differentiations from socio-economic status to socio-economic status.
People also tend to view aggregates and generals as being a sweeping admonition of the individuals therein. But these generals do not preclude the individual from exceeding those averages.
Overlaps in Intelligence and the clustering found is far different than say, clustering for physical strength between men and women. For example, the highest performing members of a low performing demographic will fall in the same range as the highest performing in any demographic regarding intelligence.
Unlike say peak strength differentials for men and women. Where its for example, phenomenal for a woman to be able to squat 200 pounds. Thats nearing typical peak strength. That 200 though, is the extreme low end of the clustering for men, as in, that's weak AF for a guy who should generally given a month or two of strength training, be able to squat 500-600+ easy.
The former(IQ) is a rather meaningless difference, the latter(strength of male v female) is very meaningful. As should be obvious why after explanation 🤔
-->
@spacetime
Differences in income and job performance would, by definition, play a role in the creation of socioeconomic disparities...
Is that a statement explicitly called out in the book, or your own inference?
Even if it's true that the book contains some inaccurate information, that doesn't provide a rational basis for one to assume that Murray is a racist.
No, but we're talking about whether or not it's reasonable to be critical of the use of racial disparities in IQ specifically in the sense of it being disparaging toward race. If noted scientists and philosophers can look at this book and judge in in that vein then I really don't see where we can rule out such criticism as completely unfounded.
I honestly don't see how you can infer from what she wrote that she's a racist. Nothing she said indicated any sort of hostility towards black people.
Like I said, balance of probabilities. Few people trudge out that "fact" unless it's part over some overall racist worldview. Listen, if I see a person wearing a white robe with a pointed hood and mask, I'm thinking KKK, not Spanish Easter Penitents.
-->
@drafterman
Listen, if I see a person wearing a white robe with a pointed hood and mask, I'm thinking KKK, not Spanish Easter Penitents.
