An Open Letter to White Privilege

[pErvinalia]

SO you want evidence showing a correlation between being black and having a lower IQ? I'm just verifying that this would indeed meet your standards of evidence before wasting my time.

You said "Blacks are mentally inferior over the aggregate, plain and simple."

Where's your evidence? You'll need a lot more than IQ data to prove this point.

That's what I'm trying to establish. Who (if anyone) is actually open to discussing this topic, and if so what is their standard of evidence. If IQ test scores are not, will you accept lower literacy scores, lower incomes even in majority black nations? What about strong correlation between the percentage of a population in a city that is black and the crime rates, unemployment rates, and poverty rates?

I did make a number of assertions in the post I made and my final conclusion was based on those as premises. If you want to challenge any one of those then please tell me which one.

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

[Jason]

Ain't nobody got time for that.

[Drewish]

SO you want evidence showing a correlation between being black and having a lower IQ? I'm just verifying that this would indeed meet your standards of evidence before wasting my time.

You said "Blacks are mentally inferior over the aggregate, plain and simple."

Where's your evidence? You'll need a lot more than IQ data to prove this point.

That's what I'm trying to establish. Who (if anyone) is actually open to discussing this topic, and if so what is their standard of evidence. If IQ test scores are not, will you accept lower literacy scores, lower incomes even in majority black nations? What about strong correlation between the percentage of a population in a city that is black and the crime rates, unemployment rates, and poverty rates?

I did make a number of assertions in the post I made and my final conclusion was based on those as premises. If you want to challenge any one of those then please tell me which one.

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Well given that standard of evidence (which I think is arbitrarily high) I could not prove my case, so I won't try. I must only ask that you think about the standard you use in concluding that environmental factors result in different racial achievement gaps. Would they hold up to such a standard?

[piscator]

Meh, been done...

[Mr.Samsa]

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Well given that standard of evidence (which I think is arbitrarily high) I could not prove my case, so I won't try. I must only ask that you think about the standard you use in concluding that environmental factors result in different racial achievement gaps. Would they hold up to such a standard?

So let's get this straight: you claim that certain racial groups are inherently mentally inferior to others. Rev says the evidence he is looking for is evidence that they are inherently mentally inferior (i.e. rules out environmental confounds so that you have a causal relationship and not a correlation), and you think this standard of evidence is "arbitrarily high"?...

To be clear, I don't think anyone here is denying that there are differences in IQ scores between different racial groups. The point of contention is the cause of that difference. You say that the cause is genetic, we're interested in seeing the evidence. (And for me personally, the kind of evidence I'm looking for is anything other than what has been written by Jensen, Rushton, or in "The Bell Curve", as presenting that evidence would simply suggest you don't know what you're talking about).

[pErvinalia]

SO you want evidence showing a correlation between being black and having a lower IQ? I'm just verifying that this would indeed meet your standards of evidence before wasting my time.

You said "Blacks are mentally inferior over the aggregate, plain and simple."

Where's your evidence? You'll need a lot more than IQ data to prove this point.

That's what I'm trying to establish. Who (if anyone) is actually open to discussing this topic, and if so what is their standard of evidence. If IQ test scores are not, will you accept lower literacy scores, lower incomes even in majority black nations? What about strong correlation between the percentage of a population in a city that is black and the crime rates, unemployment rates, and poverty rates?

I did make a number of assertions in the post I made and my final conclusion was based on those as premises. If you want to challenge any one of those then please tell me which one.

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Well given that standard of evidence (which I think is arbitrarily high) I could not prove my case, so I won't try. I must only ask that you think about the standard you use in concluding that environmental factors result in different racial achievement gaps. Would they hold up to such a standard?

So no evidence then. Lol.

[Drewish]

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Well given that standard of evidence (which I think is arbitrarily high) I could not prove my case, so I won't try. I must only ask that you think about the standard you use in concluding that environmental factors result in different racial achievement gaps. Would they hold up to such a standard?

So let's get this straight: you claim that certain racial groups are inherently mentally inferior to others. Rev says the evidence he is looking for is evidence that they are inherently mentally inferior (i.e. rules out environmental confounds so that you have a causal relationship and not a correlation), and you think this standard of evidence is "arbitrarily high"?...

To be clear, I don't think anyone here is denying that there are differences in IQ scores between different racial groups. The point of contention is the cause of that difference. You say that the cause is genetic, we're interested in seeing the evidence. (And for me personally, the kind of evidence I'm looking for is anything other than what has been written by Jensen, Rushton, or in "The Bell Curve", as presenting that evidence would simply suggest you don't know what you're talking about).

If it were based on income and access to education then it would impact poor latinos in the same regard, yes? If it were based on culture then it would not hold true in all countries. I am attempting to establish what someone, ANYONE, will accept as viable evidence first. That appears to be impossible, as there's always wiggle room with, "Even if you can show this, I can always fall back on that other argument." It's pointless to attempt to prove something to someone who will take possible doubt as evidence against. I've presented multiple premises that I'm willing to follow further along with if we can set the goal post up somewhere first. But so long as it will appear to be a moving target (or worse an undefined one) then there's again no point.

[pErvinalia]

Well both Samsa and I are scientists, so you can respect that we will have pretty high standards when it comes to evidence. I'm no expert on IQ, Samsa would know heaps more about it than me, but from what I understand it is set in a particular social learning context. I.e. you can't do an IQ test if you haven't learnt certain things first. Not learning those things first isn't a sign of mental inferiority, it's just a sign of not having learnt those things first. And then there is the validity of comparing IQ test across cultures in the context of their individual social learning environments.

And then there is the problem of isolating out genetic from environmental factors. Just because it's hard to do, doesn't mean you throw your hands up in the air and say "man, your requirements for evidence are too strict". It means you either do the work to find out if environmental confounds have been removed, or you admit that the evidence is suspect and circumstantial at best.

[Drewish]

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Isolate out environmental factors. It's impossible to separate from environmental factors. That's basically saying, "You can't possibly." And what does anyone being a scientist have to do with anything?

[rainbow]

Ain't nobody got time for that.

Yo seddit, sista!

[rainbow]

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Isolate out environmental factors. It's impossible to separate from environmental factors. That's basically saying, "You can't possibly." And what does anyone being a scientist have to do with anything?

What environmental factors contributed to your racist views?

[pErvinalia]

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Isolate out environmental factors. It's impossible to separate from environmental factors. That's basically saying, "You can't possibly." And what does anyone being a scientist have to do with anything?

We understand how experimental design is critical in assessing the validity of evidence.

[pErvinalia]

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Isolate out environmental factors. It's impossible to separate from environmental factors. That's basically saying, "You can't possibly." And what does anyone being a scientist have to do with anything?

What environmental factors contributed to your racist views?

[Svartalf]

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Isolate out environmental factors. It's impossible to separate from environmental factors. That's basically saying, "You can't possibly." And what does anyone being a scientist have to do with anything?

What environmental factors contributed to your racist views?

He was in an environment full of racists?

[Mr.Samsa]

If it were based on income and access to education then it would impact poor latinos in the same regard, yes?

It's partly based on those factors and yes, we see similar effects in poor latinos.

If it were based on culture then it would not hold true in all countries.

That argument doesn't make much sense. There aren't really any countries in the world that haven't been exposed to Western notions through things like media so a lot of cultural values and stereotypes can be found across countries. This is why we see similar racist stereotypes displayed in minorities, for example the Implicit Association Task will find that white and black people will display similar negative responses to images of black men. More importantly, the differences in other countries is largely due to factors which aren't as relevant to Westernised countries, like access to clean water, nutrition, and education.

In other words, you might see a similar drop in IQ for different reasons. It's up to you to present the evidence that rules out such confounds.

I am attempting to establish what someone, ANYONE, will accept as viable evidence first. That appears to be impossible, as there's always wiggle room with, "Even if you can show this, I can always fall back on that other argument." It's pointless to attempt to prove something to someone who will take possible doubt as evidence against. I've presented multiple premises that I'm willing to follow further along with if we can set the goal post up somewhere first. But so long as it will appear to be a moving target (or worse an undefined one) then there's again no point.

If you think the bare minimum requirement of science (i.e. research which attempts to rule out major confounds) is impossible to achieve to support your claim, then you really need to reassess the validity of your claim.

Well both Samsa and I are scientists, so you can respect that we will have pretty high standards when it comes to evidence.

To be fair, I'm not demanding any kind of evidence that is overly rigorous. It's a complex area and it's obviously impossible to rule out all confounds and so I'm pretty understanding and reasonable about it, meaning I'll accept any evidence that makes a decent attempt to account for such confounds.

I'm no expert on IQ, Samsa would know heaps more about it than me, but from what I understand it is set in a particular social learning context. I.e. you can't do an IQ test if you haven't learnt certain things first. Not learning those things first isn't a sign of mental inferiority, it's just a sign of not having learnt those things first. And then there is the validity of comparing IQ test across cultures in the context of their individual social learning environments.

This is kind of true and kind of not true. There are IQ tests which have some cultural baggage but this has largely been minimised in popular tests like the WAIS and (arguably) entirely eliminated in non-verbal IQ tests like the Raven's matrices. You would be right if you broadened your argument a little bit to say that the educational background of an individual affects their IQ score since, obviously, IQ is a measure of innate AND learnt intelligence.

And then there is the problem of isolating out genetic from environmental factors. Just because it's hard to do, doesn't mean you throw your hands up in the air and say "man, your requirements for evidence are too strict". It means you either do the work to find out if environmental confounds have been removed, or you admit that the evidence is suspect and circumstantial at best.

This is exactly right. With all the evidence we have of environmental factors impacting intelligence we know that if an innate gap exists then it can only be a matter of a couple of IQ points. The debate is mostly academic at that point and essentially inconsequential in the real world but it's interesting watching certain people cling to that insignificant difference and try to generalise it to a huge group of people to make unevidenced grandiose claims.

Well, I'll look at any evidence you want to give. My view at the moment would be that it is going to be very hard to isolate out environmental factors in any analysis. And even if we could isolate environmental confounds, you've then got to prove the point that IQ is an appropriate measure of mental inferiority or superiority. Particularly between different cultures. Your other points mentioned above would be impossible to separate from environmental factors.

Isolate out environmental factors. It's impossible to separate from environmental factors. That's basically saying, "You can't possibly." And what does anyone being a scientist have to do with anything?

If you're saying that it's impossible to rule out confounds that can contradict your position (it's not, the research has been done and is still being done), then aren't you essentially saying that you cannot possibly have any evidence for your position? How can you have evidence of the difference being genetic when you admit that it could be environmental (since you supposedly can't rule it out)?