I love the lock-out without tag-out anecdote (about the electrical panel). Like, why does he think in the first world there's tags and policies for immediate termination of anyone fucking around with lockouts unauthorized? What does he think did white menial laborers do about locks on the panels, that resulted in the whole tagging and single key rules and training videos and policies?
I guess he just thinks that in the white countries industrial accidents are prevented by the magic of being white.
Or, the IQ tests are done by people from the pioneer fund who want to
prove white people are better, which makes them biased.
(There was a scientist who exposed a lot of these African iq tests as
flawed (reporting 10 year olds as 14 year olds, coal miners with no
schooling as normal people who attended schooling, throwing away any
tests which found an 100 average region, and other flaws. In reaction to
this the pioneer fund just had different scientists redo the IQ tests
after this scientist was dead, and they found 80 IQ again. Which should
be an eyeopener, you can’t find the same results twice if you use a
flawed measuring method the first time).
Don’t debate me on this, weird IQ racists who find this post 2 months
from now.
NeonCrusader posted
[I of, all people, should not judge people on their stupid
accountnames, but I am judging this crusader]
So by your view, scientific racists are fervently convinced of the
innate superiority of Jews, Japanese and Chinese people, since they all
score the highest on IQ tests? Hitler must be rolling in his grave…
This is dumb, this is perfectly compatible with the ‘both weak and
strong’ part of fascism, and the whole ‘crafty non-white people who
control the world to kill all the whites’ neo-nazi ideas.
In fact, racists readily admit the white IQ is lower, but they say
the other groups are worse at ‘working together outside of the tribe’ or
something, which IQ doesn’t test for, so whites still win. (This ‘trait’
when taken to its extreme, also explains SJWs (who racists think exist),
and they also think that that only white people can be SJWs).
Yeah, they say that whites have slightly lower IQs than East Asians, but that East Asians are biologically more autistic and incapable of socializing as a result. Whites are 'just right' according to Rushton's Goldilocks theory of race.
Is there a good source on the Pioneer Fund people "cooking the books" with IQ tests? I always figured that it was immediately intuitively ludicrous to state that the average African is retarded, but it's be nice to have some concrete evidence there as well.
Ill look up a source when im back home. Iirc it was the same scientist who went after the bell curve. The shaun vid should have a source, but i independently found the article before. (Yeah im hipster like that)
E: Aha, it wasn't Gould which I remembered, but somebody else: here have a source. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/008124630603600101
Very smart rational people discussing why some developing nation IQs
are (allegedly) around 80 without mentioning that developed country IQ
was also around 80, like, four generations ago
Even more interestingly, the scores rose the most on "culturally independent" tests like Raven's progressive matrices (the kind that would be used to try to grade different cultures).
With Raven's progressive matrices, the issue is that those were invented in 1936, and the mathematics underpinning why one answer would be correct and another wouldn't, came around in 1960s (Information theory, complexity theory, etc). And it is still far too obscure for anyone in psychology/psychometry/etc to know about.
If you ask people when Shakespeare was born, you understand how you produce the correct answer: you read the year somewhere, you produce that same number from memory. This is obviously learning based and cultural.
If you continue a sequence or fill in a gap, even as you give the correct answer, you have no fucking clue whatsoever why that one answer is correct, and not another one. It is primarily dependent on the patterns that you had previously seen in your environment, nearly to the extent to which you knowing a historical date is a product of you memorizing it.
But the process in your head that collects visual patterns and builds probability distributions from them, is entirely inaccessible to reflection (unlike memorization of historical dates). Continuing a pattern feels like pure thinking rather than recall.
More insidiously, natural environments (with leaves, trees, and so on) are almost entirely devoid of relevant patterns for Raven's progressive matrices.
Ultimately I think it gives massively lower scores to people who have less artificial environment to look at.
It is essential for understanding what "correct" could possibly *mean*, formally speaking, in sequence continuation tests. What is the algorithm for finding the correct answer, for any arbitrary progressive matrices test? What is the "correctness" score that is highest for the correct answer? Why exactly do you think that an intelligent being other than the test maker would tend to give the same answers as the test maker? If you had an almost infinitely powerful computer, how would you use it to produce a correct answer every time?
Well that is kind of the whole point. There is no correct answer without including in the question a lot of patterns that the test maker was presumably exposed to, and even then, in complexity theory, the complexity is dependent on the choice of the machine.
Ultimately the issue vis-a-vis understanding of complexity theory is the converse - that without knowing anything about the complexity theory, you have those psychologists coming up with some "folk mathematics" where there is in fact a correct answer identical across cultures.
> I speculate, but I think a statistical and natural language processing approach would work better here. This seems like it would be a major open problem.
Well as of now you can just train a neural network at a very large dataset of patterns common in the culture of the test maker. The neural network *sort of* produces least complexity fill in considering the whole dataset.
Then if that network disagrees with the test maker then it is probably going to be a thing where you could see either one as correct.
edit: to clarify my point. Psychologists had made a test about pattern continuation without having any formal insights whatsoever about pattern continuation. Consequently they believed they had a test that is not culturally biased. Then they found out that the scores on that test rose the most over the years, indicating that it is in fact the *most* culturally biased test they had.
Any formal insights about sequence continuation would lead you to believe that the answer is probably defined by convention and culture, and that even if you formalize the intuition about the "simplest answer" it is not giving you anything universal.
edit: to clarify, I don't think we disagree. My point is, knowing complexity theory, you know a (potential) definition of "correct answer", you know it is dependent on the choice of machine, you know the patterns are much too short without context of the other patterns the test maker seen in their life (if you went with complexity approach you'd have to prefix every question with a huge dataset of patterns). It being visual patterns, particularly so (any kind of context-less approach would just output you some visual garbage or a blank square).
Knowing all this, you wouldn't expect some fuzzy version to be culturally independent, the way psychometrists expected this to be culturally independent.
Might as well throw some number in: The average IQ in britain in the 1940s was [86 by todays standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect). The average IQ claimed in the linked post for nigeria is [84](https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html).
Except, of course, the source for the "world IQ" is Richard Lynn, a massive racist with notoriously shoddy methodology. ( [Shauns video on the bell curve](https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?t=4249) shows one hilarious example where Lynn mistook the average IQ for the number of people in the study)
Steve sailer has an answer to that exact question: here
or here
more recently.
After intensive research, Jensen finally came to the conclusion that
the IQ tests were fine: they predicted the future equally accurately for
both whites and blacks. The cause was that whites and blacks had a
difference in average of IQ of about one standard deviation (15 points),
so 70 was two standard deviations below the white mean (2nd percentile)
but only one standard deviation below the black mean (16th
percentile)
So 70 IQ children of elite whites tend to have syndromes and are
ostracized, while 70 IQ lower class black children can have the same
level of abstract thinking but still socialize as mostly normals.
(I feel dirty typing this, though.)
hey, how bout then don’t fucking type it?! or do, whatever,
but don’t pull this duplicitous “oh i feel so bad pulling quotes from
white supremacists right off the top of my head” bullshit
My father ran a farm in South Africa - frankly the stories of the
dumb things his farm workers did are pretty astounding and while he
still works in agriculture he certainly has no stories of similar
caliber now that he works in the US (even if most of the employees he
manages aren’t American citizens)
> I'd point to Gwern's review of McNamara's Folly. The people involved there weren't just less functional in some abstract way: they have drastically lower reaction times, were confused by simple signs, could not swing from monkey bars or throw accurately or pace themselves running. One took significant training to tie their shoes, but could not be taught to make his bed
I'm so rational I actually think africans are too dumb to tie their shoes and make their own beds.
You really can't make this shit up.
Our studies show that Motteniks aren't just less functional in some abstract way, they actually believe sources that tell them that Africans can't pace themselves running.
McNamara's Folly was about that time the US military conscripted mentally disabled people into the Vietnam war.
Of course the point one ought to be making is that the IQ scores they're claiming for poor countries are not plausible on the grounds that people with said IQ scores are far more seriously disabled than what even a racist would claim about the third world. In other words, they've probably made up the numbers and went too far.
edit: reworded for clarity.
[https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture\_war\_roundup\_for\_the\_week\_of\_february\_17/fi1xznx/](https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_february_17/fi1xznx/)
>So 70 IQ children of elite whites tend to have syndromes and are ostracized, while 70 IQ lower class black children can have the same level of abstract thinking but still socialize as mostly normals.
"But IQ results depend on nourishment, education, culture--"
"Lalalalala can't hear you over the sound of my racism!"
I think it is worth pointing out why it does actually make sense to
expect nearly equal innate intelligence between regions (a counter to
“rationalist” argument that it would be a coincidence).
Evolution is slow, and on the timescales that it occurs on, there was
a large amount of interbreeding between neighboring groups, there was
severe competition between genes. Pigmentation genes spread roughly
along the lines of latitude, intelligence related genes spread in every
direction, random irrelevant drift that confers no advantage stays in
place.
For being social Darwinists they don’t care much for how every group
still alive has already proven it is up to par with the neighbors,
during a million year long bloody contest. And for being “rationalists”
they are not good at the transitive rule.
The inferior branches they hypothesize about, those did exist, all
those other hominids. They’re long gone by now except for a few DNA
strands that happened to be compatible with the H. Sapiens Sapiens. We
don’t live in a hypothetical universe where two different hominid
species survived and one may be less intelligent than the other, we live
in one where only one hominid branch survived, with all divergence being
limited to a minuscule fraction of our history as a species.
Well, the point is that there simply isn’t much diversity left between populations when it comes to genes that are advantageous, like those improving some kind of problem solving presumably are. Equal doesn’t really imply it has to be a number or have well defined ordering, although you are right to majority of people it does.
edit: I guess I should just say "approximately the same intelligence".
I feel like acknowledging differences also buys into the racist narrative albeit in a different way. They massively exaggerated the differences, since forever.
If we still had Neanderthals, there would be this huge weird question of who is "smarter" when the abilities do not align. But this kind of diversity is long gone now. We’re all ultimately from Africa and we changed very little.
edit: Basically the way I see the recent debate is that they post their fraudulent IQ statistics, the left often responds with arguments against IQ comparisons in general, valid argument but nonetheless the "human biodiversity" group wins with the people who have a vested interest in IQ due to e.g. falling in that weird category of people with high IQ scores but low performance in real life (i.e. the "rationalists").
I don't feel they are entitled to that victory. The argument that people are basically the same when it comes to intelligence (if raised in the same environment) may seem old fashioned, and may lack "nuance", but it is not to be superseded just because of a handful of fraudulent studies going as far as to take data from mentally disabled children and claim it is from an African nation. I'm not going to concede ground to anything which can be misconstrued as "well yes they are different but you can't rank them as inferior" just because Lynn lies a lot.
The evil shit which motivates their arguments does not require ranking; quite the opposite, in nazism the enemy is both superior and inferior at the same time. They don't rely on IQ in particular, they're happy to fall back to craniometry for example.
My favorite part is how many times in that thread people complain about anecdotes and immediately use anecdotes to excuse their racism.
Or, the IQ tests are done by people from the pioneer fund who want to prove white people are better, which makes them biased.
(There was a scientist who exposed a lot of these African iq tests as flawed (reporting 10 year olds as 14 year olds, coal miners with no schooling as normal people who attended schooling, throwing away any tests which found an 100 average region, and other flaws. In reaction to this the pioneer fund just had different scientists redo the IQ tests after this scientist was dead, and they found 80 IQ again. Which should be an eyeopener, you can’t find the same results twice if you use a flawed measuring method the first time).
Don’t debate me on this, weird IQ racists who find this post 2 months from now.
[I of, all people, should not judge people on their stupid accountnames, but I am judging this crusader]
This is dumb, this is perfectly compatible with the ‘both weak and strong’ part of fascism, and the whole ‘crafty non-white people who control the world to kill all the whites’ neo-nazi ideas.
In fact, racists readily admit the white IQ is lower, but they say the other groups are worse at ‘working together outside of the tribe’ or something, which IQ doesn’t test for, so whites still win. (This ‘trait’ when taken to its extreme, also explains SJWs (who racists think exist), and they also think that that only white people can be SJWs).
Lots of r/thathappened in that thread.
Very smart rational people discussing why some developing nation IQs are (allegedly) around 80 without mentioning that developed country IQ was also around 80, like, four generations ago
hey, how bout then don’t fucking type it?! or do, whatever, but don’t pull this duplicitous “oh i feel so bad pulling quotes from white supremacists right off the top of my head” bullshit
ah let me guess your dad was a white supremacist
[Special] (https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_february_17/fi1x45s/) [shoutouts] (https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_february_17/fi1zkli/) [to] (https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_february_17/fi2b41z/) [the] (https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_february_17/fi1xznx/) [worst] (https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_february_17/fi1z1lc/) [bits] (https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/f53qhm/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_february_17/fi2mgnw/)
They’re using a ludicrous amount of words just to say, “I’m a racist piece of shit”.
And here I was almost beginning to miss TPO
I think it is worth pointing out why it does actually make sense to expect nearly equal innate intelligence between regions (a counter to “rationalist” argument that it would be a coincidence).
Evolution is slow, and on the timescales that it occurs on, there was a large amount of interbreeding between neighboring groups, there was severe competition between genes. Pigmentation genes spread roughly along the lines of latitude, intelligence related genes spread in every direction, random irrelevant drift that confers no advantage stays in place.
For being social Darwinists they don’t care much for how every group still alive has already proven it is up to par with the neighbors, during a million year long bloody contest. And for being “rationalists” they are not good at the transitive rule.
The inferior branches they hypothesize about, those did exist, all those other hominids. They’re long gone by now except for a few DNA strands that happened to be compatible with the H. Sapiens Sapiens. We don’t live in a hypothetical universe where two different hominid species survived and one may be less intelligent than the other, we live in one where only one hominid branch survived, with all divergence being limited to a minuscule fraction of our history as a species.