IQ Scores and Junk Science for Racists
12 December 2006, early morning
Or, all about Ram’s Low IQ
Occasionally I will comment on the Hogtown Front till I learn something new about the world I live in. Over the last day or so I learned I’m part of an ethnic group with a low-mean IQ. Sucks. I also learned that I’m also apparently bringing this average down. Double-suck. There is a part of me that seems to search out obnoxious people to argue with. I think it’s because i’m also obnoxious.
IQ scores seem to have replaced brain-mass as the junk science of choice for racists. The only other group of people I’ve seen so obsessed with IQ scores are grade school gifted kids. Even then, it didn’t take long for most gifties to learn that calling kids reggies isn’t actually a dis — I guess it’s because they’re gifted and learn things quicker. It’s not fair to expect the same thing from the sorts of people that think Blacks are genetically predisposed to dumbness. How do you argue with that kind of stupid? I’m not sure I know how. That’s not to say I didn’t try and argue. I posted twice on the Hogtown Front on why this particular study on IQ and the GDP of countries seems poorly thought out and why its use by racists like Sailer is more or less bullshit: That’s not what the study shows… and the study does compare countries, not racial groups…
If this post is a bit snarky and conceited it’s because I’m gifted and I can’t help it. The fact I can’t help but read these websites that make me crazy goes to show how little that label means.
ed. I filled this post out. It was just a link before.
Wait, I’m confused. Are you supposed to be Tamil Joe? Because I had no idea that you were up to all that stuff.
by Matt on December 12 2006, 9:04 am #
Yeah I’m Joe Blarnystone. I should have picked a more obvious name, rather that using the alias I used on BBSes back in the day.
by ramanan on December 12 2006, 10:15 am #
Yeah, I’ve seen you use that alias in previous blog postings. I just wasn’t sure how the leap was made from Joe Blarneystone to the insidious Tamil Joe just because you made a few good points.
But then, racism isn’t usually dependent on high-quality logic, in spite of how credible studies like these might make it look on the surface.
by Matt on December 12 2006, 11:52 am #
This guy is a real gem:
I can’t bother trying to reason with people with that world view…I mean at what point did the Aboriginal homeland become his homeland? Is his ancestry French? I’ll bet New France was seething at the low IQ English who were coming in.
So what’s the length of time that’s needed for someone else’s homeland to become appropriated? Assuming Desmond is French and we use the New France civilization as a baseline, then ~400 years. South Asians have to wait till ~2240 I guess.
It’s ridiculous that in this day and age people still think like this.
by haran on December 12 2006, 9:36 pm #
Yeah. I usually stop commenting when Desmond shows up. I really don’t agree with much of anything the guy who maintains the site posts, but he’s a lot more reasonable than the people who seem to comment on his site.
by ramanan on December 12 2006, 10:36 pm #
I’m the proprietor – that sounds pompous, doesn’t it? – of the blog, Dispatches from the Hogtown Front Analyzing group differences in IQ results is a technical issue that requires specialized knowledge to sort out. Not having that specialized knowledge, I don’t have a firm opinion on the subject. However, I have read enough to believe the question is important. That’s the reason I linked to Philippe Rushton’s review of the book IQ and Global Inequality.
For the record, some of the comments posted on my blog make me uncomfortable and I worry people will think I agree with comments other people have written. I’ve even considered banning all comments for that reason. I’ve also considered moderating comments, but I don’t want to be in the position of deciding what opinions are acceptable or not. Also, for the record, I’m glad Ram posts comments, because I think his challenges make the blog more interesting.
I don’t consider Steve Sailer either a racist or a junk scientist. I see him as journalist who reports and comments on the research others are doing into racial differences. While I question some of what he writes, I think his work deserves consideration. Maybe if I were more knowledgable I would see flaws that I don’t recognzie right now. I don’t know.
I don’t know enough to argue the case that race is a biological category as opposed to a social construct, but I’m inclined to believe humanity can be divided into races on the basis of real biological differences. (I acknowledge that whether true or not this belief carries certain dangers. Whenever you categorize people there is a danger that certain categories will be considered undesirable, which in extreme cases can lead to atrocities against the group judged undesirable. That’s a real danger and probably the main reason there are so many taboos surrounding race.) That said, I don’t think a person’s value is determined by his race. I also think there is a big difference between group and individual differences. As Steve Sailer points out, the fact that blacks have on average lower IQ scores than whites doesn’t change the fact that there are millions of blacks with above average IQ. There are black geniuses and white idiots. (I know, I know, I’m one of those white idiots. No need to rub it in!)
When I link to an article, I hope people will click on the link and read the whole piece. I would be very frightened if I thought I had the power to control other people’s thoughts, because I don’t have that much confidence in my own opinions. I just want to get people thinking about issues I consider important. I have strong opinions about immigration, which I’m not shy about sharing, but I don’t have the power to determine Canadian immigration policy. If that policy ever changes it will because millions of Canadians want change. If those millions aren’t out there, the policy will stay the same.
by Michael on December 13 2006, 7:27 pm #
I would be very frightened if I thought I had the power to control other people’s thoughts, because I don’t have that much confidence in my own opinions.
Maybe I should clarify this. Obviously I am trying to influence people with my blog otherwise I wouldn’t have it. At the same time, however, I trust my readers are smart enough to judge for themselves whether what I say makes sense or not. I’m confident enough in my own opinions to think they’re worth sharing, but not so confident to think I’m always right or my opinions should always prevail.
by Michael on December 13 2006, 8:11 pm #
I don’t want to rehash everything I’ve already said on this issue, so I’ll just touch on commenting.
Since I only write about really inane stuff here I rarely have to deal with controversial comments. The few times I do get comments that are a bit off I usually just make fun of the person doing the commenting. (For example, I apparently don’t appreciate the Drake enough. Or the comment on my low IQ I linked to earlier.) Sometimes I’ll erase comments, but I do it more to get rid of what I consider noise — stuff that’s off-topic.
I think your readers and what they post reflect on you, whether you like it or not. This was my criticism of Signal vs. Noise a while back. Tyler recently emailed me a crazy comment he got and asked if he should allow it or not; my advice was that if was going to post it he should make sure to respond. You have editorial control of your website, so if you let stuff stand people’s natural reaction is to assume you are OK with it.
For example, these comments on Steve Sailer’s blog are the sort of thing I would probably just erase out right, as a response would be a waste of my time.
Ditto:
I already have a low opinion of Sailer, and stuff like this reinforces that, even though it’s not coming form his mouth. People judge you by the company you keep. Those comments aren’t dissenting speech, they are basically just noise — and in my eyes clearly offensive noise. In this case I see no harm in censorship. The hard part is dealing with all the comments that fall in between something sensible, and something outright nutso. If I was moderating your site you’d have next to no comments, but here my own bias on the issues you write about comes in to play.
I think your link about anti-semetism sums this all up nicely.
by ramanan on December 14 2006, 12:41 am #
I just noticed that several of Sailer’s readers are calling for moderation or a ban on comments; I suspect it is precisely because they see comments like I quoted above making their case all the more illegitimate.
by ramanan on December 14 2006, 4:39 pm #