It’s been a while, hasn’t it? I must get better at updating this thing. It’s a shame that work and other bits and pieces steal away the time. Ah well. On today’s agenda we have @Karl_Rosc. I’m just going to call him Karl for short.
Karl is a ‘race realist’.
The younger readers out there might not know the term, but I’m sure the older of you out there will be familiar. To most it is known as Racialism.
Most of the people I chum around with online will recognise this as the same pseudoscientific nonsense spouted by Ghazi Kodzo (The Black Hitler), but for those of you that don’t I’ll do you a brief description: Racialism is the belief that it is possible to divide humanity into clear, well-defined groups based on a haphazard variety of traits, most commonly in terms of physical characteristics having to do with skin, or that human populations are substantially different from each other in some measure to support biological classification below the species level. Most racialists maintain there is also a racial hierarchy.
‘Racial realists’ get an advantage over regular racists in that they can deny their racism by saying, “I’m not a racist, I’m a realist!”. After that they can paint non-racialists as “race deniers” which suggests denial of the obvious facts — when in fact, science opposes racialism.
I don’t know where the idea that each race is different really came from, but it gets trotted out by the people who think that it matters every now and then. Ironically they always seem to be the least intelligent person in the room. The main biological difference between darker-skinned humans and lighter-skinned humans is that the latter will be more prone to sunburn but will be able to more quickly produce usable vitamin D from sunlight.
Early on in our discussion, Karl explained that he believes that brain size correlates to IQ. He then provided some ‘sources’.
This first one seems to come from a wikipedia page which, naturally, Karl hasn’t read. If he had he would have seen this little bit down at the end: ‘At the demographic level, there is an inverse statistical relationship between fertility and intelligence, and the intelligence difference is possibly partly genetic. Hence, assuming a 35% ratio of the national IQ difference due to genetic differences, Lynn and Harvey proposed that the data suggested a dysgenic decline in genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000, and projected a 1.28 decline in IQ points for the years 2000–2050. Meisenberg calculated a 1.31 points decline per generation in genotypic intelligence among the young world population today. For such dysgenic trend, Woodley and Figueredo wrote of their “strong disinclinations” to endorse any “expansionist between-group military policies at the expense of other peoples”. Hunt wrote that genetics cannot be ruled out as a possible cause, but that education surely plays a major role, so one should not conclude that human capital in poor countries can never be improved. Rindermann warned of the danger of such research being politically misused. He argued that people have to be treated as individuals and not as a mere representative of any group. He argued that both environmental and genetic (evolutionary, therefore past environmental) caused these differences. He emphasized the environmental effect on the improvement of intelligence and wrote “overcoming the most serious environmental obstacles as deficits in health care, nutrition and education could lead in Africa within one generation to a rise of 10 to 15 IQ.”’
I have no idea where this one came from. Neither it seems does Karl.
Ah, this. This. This ones the kicker. Initially I thought it had been written by a Nazi, but I was wrong (although the assertion sure triggered Karl). The book in question however was given a review by David Barash. “…r- and K-selection may have some validity when considering the so-called demographic transition, whereby economic development characteristically leads to reduced family size and other K traits…But this is a pan-human phenomenon, a flexible, adaptive response to changed environmental conditions … Rushton wields r- and K-selection as a Procrustean bed, doing what he can to make the available data fit … Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book.”
Karl here is also a Hereditarian racialist. That means he believes that there are significant heritable mental differences between races, and that there is a racial hierarchy in intelligence. Most, but not all, racialists are hereditarians who get their pseudoscience from the Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly.
Of course Karl claims he is not a white supremacist. I, for one, am willing to take him at his word. I don’t think he has lied to me so far, just to himself. He worked really hard to prove how not racist he was by meming me to make me block him. Sorry buttercup, I dance with creationists normally, you got no game.
He did ask one good question;
‘@OverKillChris so why do you believe race and iq aren’t related? And rather education and wealth?’
Simply put; Mazlow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
As some of you may know, I am a teacher. If a kid can’t sit still in lesson or falls asleep all the time, I know something’s up. The easy answer is that they’re being a little shit and need a ding round the lug hole to make them smarten up.
Or, and hear me out here, they need something they aren’t getting.
Let’s take Kid A. Kid A gets to sleep at a decent time of the night, eats well and has a stable home life. Kid A does pretty ok in school and I don’t feel my brain try to commit sepuku every time he walks into the room.
Now, consider Kid B. Kid B eats very little at home, doesn’t sleep well and has a very unstable home life. Which kid will do better in school? The fresh one or the tired and hungry one?
Karl’s picture of the world’s IQ is a wonderful example of Mazlow’s Hierarchy; The countries that invest in welfare and education come up the best. To quote its own wiki article; ‘By measuring the relationship between educational data and social well-being over time, this study also performed a causal analysis, finding that nations investing in education lead to increased well-being later on.‘
In case Karl is reading and hasn’t got the point, what I am saying here is that you must satisfy your basic needs first before you can grow beyond them. People with greater stability in their life, with more food, shelter, friends, family, etc will be able to reach the top of the pyramid. That’s called self-actualisation and it’s the only way you can get more intelligent because your body can waste time thinking whereas before it needed that big brain of yours for finding said food, rest, friends, etc.
Let’s look at some of his other points.
‘@OverKillChris genetics linked to brain size. Iq and race are interrelated on meta analysis of 30 years of studies. None of it helps. IYO.’
Let’s break this bit down; ‘genetics is linked to brain size.’
Yes, yes it is. Here’s a nice little study on it. But does brain size equate to IQ though?
Differences in brain weight and size do not equal differences in mental ability. If it did then we would all be Neanderthals defending ourselves from attacking psychic sperm whales and their mindslave puppets whilst Andre the Giant gathered the souls of the fallen into some mental fortress to prepare for the ever battle at the end of time.
‘IQ and race are interrelated on meta analysis of 30 years of studies’.
I think that’s a good reason to not trust meta analyses. Meta data gave us the ’77 cents on the dollar’ pay gap myth or the staggering assumption that Ghostbusters was a good movie.
A thought strikes; IQ. What does it really mean? Oh, sure, it’s how smart you are, right?
We’ll find out in part two…
Update; There is no part two. Karl blocked me and, I’m assuming, has not read this.