This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I mean yes, but I’d consider a 10-15 IQ test differential to be fairly minor, it’s one σ at best. It’s there, but unless you’re doing high level stuff, I don’t think most people would be able to tell the difference at a glance between IQ 115 and IQ 100. At lower IQ it makes a difference sure, but for average IQ levels it’s not that much.
AFAIK as IQ is deliberately intended to be normalized, the gap is exactly the same 85 to 100 as 100 to 115, and if you think that those two aren't the same, you are also inherently saying that IQ is the wrong tool for the job. That's not even getting into the whole "what benchmark do we set 100 at", do we update it year to year or try to peg it to some historical benchmark (though this is not necessarily fatal to IQ as a metric in the same way the first is, it does present a question that must be addressed when using IQ).
Simply using IQ necessitates that you grapple with these things. That's the nature of using numbers to describe something human. You, the invoker of IQ, need to prove the numbers work as numbers and aren't better being left as philosophical concepts or practical examples, or point to something well established that does. The simple, self-evident fact that IQ is fit to a normal curve and you yourself don't seem to believe that a symmetric 15 point gap is equal across the domain is in and of itself a tacit admission that IQ is the wrong tool. Are you familiar with the statistical notions of how an assigned number scale can be nominal, or ordinal, or interval, or ratio? It's not a perfect paradigm by any means, but it's one you must grapple with at least on some level, and happens to be incredibly relevant here in this case. See also OP's initial claim that the distribution has a weird asymmetric tail, also evidence (though more mild) against using IQ as the correct tool. Similarly, the fact that you dodge the 100-center question, which is a fundamentally important question to the use of IQ, is not acceptable.
I mean, I get the whole all models are wrong but some are useful, but these are just the very basics, the fundamentals, they are not nitpicks. An example of something that at least does attempt to address these issues and mostly succeeds is the Likert scale. You might be familiar with it. It's the classic 5 or 7 point scale in response to a question, with "strongly agree" and "slightly agree" and "not sure" and disagree options. There's a natural zero, and at least psychologists attempt to say that the distance between each point is "equal". I know forced normalization distorts this equal-distance formulation slightly, in terms of the math, but two properties that persist across the transformation are the aforementioned symmetry of responses, and also the center point of responses. These two decisions are non-negotiable and mandatory to make and cannot be hand-waved away. They are inherent to the math and the use of a numerical model.
Funny, yes you do. That's literally how using statistics and math to evaluate social problems works. You can't just slap a number system onto something and call it good. That's Stats 101. Even some more advanced numerical analysis can sometimes reach the literal opposite conclusion if done or designed incorrectly. On that same note, explanatory power is also insufficient if your categories are fundamentally flawed. Why? Because what you want to do with your model matters. Even if you are trying to be predictive vs just descriptive of the past changes some potentially vital assumptions. It's, mathematically, just wild to vigorously defend arbitrary categories that have demonstrated flawed mechanisms and so-so generalizability just because it happens to kind of work as an explanation. That's not rigor, it's agenda, quite frankly. And we are talking about IQ as a tool, and you defend it based on... some non-sequiter argument about how people in charge are ignoring it or something?
You can hand-wave away the fuzzy boundary problem all you want in an observational sense, but it actually matters a lot (this is underselling it, it's literally foundational) IF you want to use IQ as a tool of making actual proscriptive, "do this and not this" kind of arguments based on what it tells you. Such as exhibit A: do we continue, change, intensify, stop, etc. "racial uplift" efforts?
I additionally think, as a factual matter, claiming that all efforts to help Black people in the last 50-60 years have failed is a pretty wild and weakly supported take. As far as I know the proportional wealth gap for example stalled out more in the 1980s or so, so 45 years, but your language seems to imply this is a more longstanding. Perhaps a more useful question I have for you then would be, at what point historically do you think things presumably got 'fair enough' that you can say "well we tried and failed so it must be their fault not ours"? I assume that is your actual argument, yes? That we as a society tried and failed at "racial uplift" and no use throwing good money after bad, that kind of thing?
My grandpa told me a story last year about how while he was growing up his dad decided to quit being a realtor because he was so mad at the realtor's association refusing to allow him to sell a house to a nice, well-off Asian couple the house they wanted because of explicit redlining. He was willing to go to bat for them and fight it and they just gave up. Redlining for example only became technically illegal in 1968 and sure as hell didn't magically stop overnight. You know, the main way Americans build generational wealth. Sound familiar? Don't get me wrong, there's sure a limit to assistance, and personally I favor a more, well not entirely race-blind approach, but certainly a more targeted approach that mainly focuses on wealth as it is rather than other groupings.
I don't consider a Google Images search to be a well-sourced claim, and even beyond that, averages don't capture the whole picture. Which you might know, if you didn't have a complete disdain for statistical methodology. This isn't the weeds, it's the absolute bedrock basics, which I keep trying to tell you. Do you have an actual source? Do you recognize that your stated claims above don't even match the data you yourself hint at?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link