Political Correctness

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

That would depend on your personal definition of race then. If you mean the genes that make up the actual physical difference that people point at and say, "There is an Indian", or "There is a Black man", then no those genes have absolutely no effect on much except appearence. But if you speak of the gene-pool that the race is attributed to, yes, there are modifications.

Of course we cannot really say that this race is more intelligent than that one, because intelligence has many components that a race may or may not exibit. Also, sometimes it is difficult to seperate cultural modifications from genetic ones. Is the Asian tendancy toward better mathematical skills cultural or genetic, or both?

But the point I am still trying to make is that none of us is a race, we are all individuals. Standard deviation is a tool to measure tendancies not a physical law. I am well above normal intelligence for my race, so I really do not care if my race is not the most intelligent on the globe, it does not affect what I already have.

[fedfem]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 2 2003, 12:38 AM But the point I am still trying to make is that none of us is a race, we are all individuals. Standard deviation is a tool to measure tendancies not a physical law. I am well above normal intelligence for my race, so I really do not care if my race is not the most intelligent on the globe, it does not affect what I already have.

Then why do you keep saying "my race"?

What is "above normal intelligence"? I assume you mean above average. Normal intelligence falls in the range of 75-175, I believe.

I believe the anthropological or biological classification of races; Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid, has been done away with publically for PC reasons. I do not agree with this trend. My reasons have more to do with health than anything. Then again, I believe male and female should be studied separately also in a biological sense.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Normal intelligence falls within +/- 4 standard deviations of the bell curve, as all things in statisical analysis do. A 100 intellegence is defined as the average score of a high school graduate, the current drop in the knowege of a high school graduate may explain the sudden increase in people tested at 170+ IQs.

IQ itself is a logarithm multiplied by 100. Therefore if you take 1 and add the logrithmatic index and multiply by 100 you get IQ. 130 was originally defined as genius IQ because a person twice as smart as average works out to {[1+(log2)]*100}= 130.1 The system has now changed somewhat from that standard, but it is still a good general outline. When I graduate that is one of the things I need to re-research and figure out what they have changed...

EDIT: Almost forgot. Normal intelligence is therefore 100 +/- 25 points. (75-125)

EDIT again: I say my race because I am a member of the class... The same way my car is not General Motors, I am not my race.

[Geoff332]

racial observations are only racism if diliberately slighting

So it's quite ok to say something that is based on someone's race, as long as it's not derogatory or prejorative? It doesn't have to be factually correct?

Racism, as I define it, is a subset of prejudice. It involves making generalisations about an entire group on the basis of a limited sample or a poorly understood observation.

Your example of "intelligent people are less likely to be racist" is, in fact, an example of a generalisation -- albeit based on a characteristic other than race. Now, to test if it's a valid generalisation, you need to consider if it actually applies widely. The first issue is to identify what you mean by intelligence. You seem to be referring to IQ -- especially given reference to averages, means, norms and so forth. The idea of one dimensional intelligence that can be comapred statistically is exactly what IQ means.

IQ is not the only way of understanding intelligence. It is, in fact, a sub-set of psychometrics that is quite heavily criticised. There are at least two basic streams of critique. The reliability critique focuses on the demonstrable fact that IQ tests are fairly biased in terms of a number of dimensions, including socio-economic and socio-cultural groupings. The empirical fact that certain groups tend to perform better than others is at least in part due to the instruments of measurement rather than to differences between the groups. The validity critique questions the idea of a single dimension of intelligence. These critiques argue that intelligence consists of at least three independant dimensions (there are theories for three, five and seven that I know of; there are probably a lot more). Because these dimensions are independant, there is no G (general intelligence, which IQ is supposed to be measuring).

The second factor is. Nowhere do you make it very clear how you can actually assess racism. You talk about intelligent people being "less likely" to be racist. This leads me to believe that you might be referring to a propensity to be racist. i'm still not sure how you would measure this -- but the idea of 'more' and 'less' likely indicates that it is measured as a probability. How this probability is assessed or assigned is something of a mystery.

However, you have clearly put your stake in the ground as saying that IQ is intelligence. And there seems to be some idea of a propensity to racism. So we will have to work with these ideas. Now the question that I have is, what evidence do you have that negatively associates IQ with propensity to racism? How were these two factors assessed? How reliable are the measures? What are the errors associated with them? You put no limits on your claim -- so I assume it applies to all people at all times, in all places. What evidence do you have that this relationship is enduring across all domains? The only evidence you give is the different attitudes that are expressed by people playing Ping Pong vs people playing Chess. How do you know that there are distinct differences in the IQ levels of people involved in each activity (or is that another generalisation that is made with out evidence)? How have you demonstrated that IQ differences, rather than any of thousands of other possible factors, are the causal factor differentiating high and low propensity to racism? Since intelligence is a causal factor, then we have some interesting implications. There has been a steady decline in institutional racism over the past 200 years or so, mirroring a decline in racism in society at large (evidenced by legislative changes, such as abolition, right to vote, race relations and human rights protection). Does this mean that society is getting more intelligent? Or are there other causal factors involved? How do you know which particular set apply to a given situation?

I've written this ever so slightly tongue in cheek. I've asked a lot of questions (some of which I would like to see answered). The point I am trying to make is that we constantly make generalisations on the basis of rather flimsy evidence -- and this is racism. When those generalisations apply to race, this is racism, irrespective of the intention behind them. The point of political correctness, when used 'correctly', is to highlight invalid generalisations and to prevent people from making statements that are either false or unsupported.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Sorry, making guesses based on flimsy evidence is called research. (lol) Yes, IQ tests are only accurate for a ballpark guess, but guess what, that is all you need for my observation, geesh. What, you think an exact measurement is needed for a generalisation? Has anyone else taken statistics?

[fedfem]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 2 2003, 02:47 PM Sorry, making guesses based on flimsy evidence is called research. (lol)

That statement is laughable! Research is used to take guesswork out of the equation. A guess is a guess or better a hypothesis. Research is used to confirm or refute such.

[Geoff332]

You try to tell us your a rationalist. I am wondering then how you actually measured IQ and racism to produce your conclusion? Since you are a rationalist, you must have the numbers. So, where is your measure of IQ, your measure of racism (or propensity to racism) and the relationship between the two.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

FedFem
Where do you get off? I even posted "(lol)" to point out the joke and you still did not get it...

Geoff
You prove my point nicely. I have came to absolutely no conclusions other than pointing out the nature of solving the problem, and you are already accusing me of coming to a wrong answer even though I have not even offered one.

Exactly where does your circular logic have a tie-in with rationality?

[Geoff332]

I notice you not answering my questions. Where is your evidence of IQ, racism and the relationship between the two.

Circularity of logic?

IQ is a concept. It was developed by Spearman (among others) who hypothesised that there was a single factor that underlay all intelligence -- or more specifically the quality of performance on cognitive tasks. He assumed this to be true (if you don't believe me, go and have a read of his "The nature of 'intelligence' and the principles of cognition"). Because of this assumption, he developed a methodology -- factor analysis -- to identify that factor. The mathematics are pretty tricky (and not something I really specialise in), but the basic principle is factor analysis is always going to return a 'strongest' factor which is considered to be G.

The problem is, this tends to account for a relatively limited amount of the variance in performance on cognitive tasks -- around 20-30%. Other factors explained nearly as much -- suggesting that there might be mutliple independant dimensions to intelligence. However these would have challenged the thesis of G (and, consequently the notion of IQ). So they were basically ignored (the process was a lot more complex; Spearman was a very competent gentleman). But the basic principle is that G is, at best, a questionable concept that has a degree of empirical support but no conclusive proof of validity. Sociologically, one would call the process objectification. Philosophically, one would call it tautological (which, rather than circularity is a better description of my reasoning). The process started with an abstract idea (G), developed a methodology driven by this idea (factor analysis) and applied it to a dataset (intelligence tests) to support the original thesis. The process has become highly self-referential (we know intelligence exists because we can measure intelligence. We can measure intelligence because we know intelligence exists.)

I suspect you will not answer my questions, nor accept this analysis. If you decide to do neither, can you please explain your decision.

[Geoff332]

Oh, and just because I haven't provided an answer doesn't make yours correct. That is a first order fallacy that any rational thinker would reject in a flash. I have not tried to offer any answers, I have merely asked you to justify your position.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Geoff
First of all I must point out that you are simply arguing from a critical point of view. You are demanding that I carry the arguement to the smallest detail while you utterly fail to make any point at all, except your ability to use a few flashy sounding words. Those words also exist in my vocabulary, but I have no need to use the "baffle them with bullshit" approach.

Second, according to what you posted in your philosophy, you reject the notion that what you see with your own eyes is proof. Therefore anything I post will come to you by debatably argueable means, you may simply claim that any evidence presented by me is simply a product of your imagination.

Therefore, since you claim that all reality is determined by metaphysical means, why are you here, when you could be flipping Tarot cards somewhere to tell you the nature of the universe.

As far as evidence, we have skyscarpers, airplanes, and spacecraft, but none of them were built using metaphysical irrationality.

[Geoff332]

OK -- you've made three posts since I asked for the evidence, and have not provided it, despite my repeatedly asking for it (chosing instead to attack my approach -- an interesting approach for someone who claims to be a rationalist). I think it is therefore safe to assume that you have no empirical evidence. If I am wrong, I am sure you will provide it in your next post to prove that point.

If there is no evidence, do I take it that you are holding a belief about an empirical relationship for which you have no evidence? When applied to a group on the basis of a given characteristic, it's also a textbook definition of prejudice. Not a negative prejudice, but prejudice all the same.

You say I have no position and am arguing from a critical point of view -- and you're both right and wrong. I have made no statements about any relationships between racism and intelligence, or race and anything for that matter, in this thread (there is an implied null hypothesis that there is no relationship). The thread is about political correctness, and I have made one or two statements about political correctness (which you seem to have missed and certainly haven't taken any effort to address).

Now, are you going to:
1. Provide the evidence for your claim.
2. Address the point I did make about political correctness.
3. Do something else.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

You want my evidence, okay here is my evidence, but you are not going to like it, since it is not written on dead sea scrolls.

Go downtown, spend a few hours with the dredges that hang out on the corner trying to get hired for the day, listen to the reason they think they cannot get work. Next, go to a welfare office, and encourage the people there to tell you why they are poor. Go to the local school spend an hour with the ones that are hiding out smoking, and an hour with the honor students. Go to a college, and spend an hour each at the ping pong tables and the chess matches.

No, I cannot write the equation for the relationship, but it is not difficult to notice that both intelligence and knowledge do have an impact. But I live in this world, I do not major in it. (lol)



But, on the other hand, this is not what I started this post to show people. What this post is meant to show is how different people will express their idea's if there exists the fear of being branded a racist simply for having an unpopular opinion. Too bad, that this time I lacked the skill to manuever it there, or did I? :)

[Geoff332]

1. There is no basis for me to assume that what you consider to be intelligence is the same as the IQ scores. Most critically, what you are experiencing as 'intelligence' may well be the same multi-dimensional construct I have been referring to all along (if I am forced to adopt a measure of intelligence, I would take a multi-dimensional view).
2. If the evidence you've provided is, in fact, correct, there is still no sense of causality -- the best you have is correlation. Given that we know that IQ measures are socio-economically biased, it is just as likely that they are either merely correlated (ie co-incidental), epiphenomenal (both caused by a third, unmentioned/unmeasured, factor) or that the causality goes in the opposite direction (having a poor education causes you to score lower on an IQ test).
3. You have stated elsewhere that measurement is essential for you to know something (a core tennant of your stated philosophy). Since you have provided no measures, I can only conclude that you have no knowledge of this.
4. The statement I wanted you to provide evidence for was the statement that "Intelligence does affect racism" (which I was using as an example of prejudice). I still see no evidence of that, and certainly no 'measured' evidence, for that assertion.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

If we cannot even decide on a common definition of intelligence I really cannot be expected to provide that, so I will have to pass. But I can give a short explaination of what I consider intelligence, in order of importance.

#1 The ability to cross-reference, as in use knowedge in one skill for another.
#2 The ability to adapt.
#3 The ability to apply a medium of learning to reality.
#4 The ability to communicate ideas. (This one is hard to rate as a number, since it is staged. So I arbitrarily left it last.))

[Geoff332]

You still seem to be missing the point. I am not trying to debate the nature of intelligence -- I was merely reviewing the history of IQ scores and demonstrating that they do not meet any mildly rigourous standard of objectivity.

You have given a few dimensions of intelligence that you hold, which is great. Curiously, you've left out a bunch of the concepts more normally associated with intelligence (and, most importantly for this context), measured in IQ tests -- problem solving, spatial manipulation, logical reasoning (extrapolation, induction, deduction). But I still have yet to see any demonstrated relationship between measures of these dimensions and racism. Since this was your original assertion, I am looking for the evidence of that.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Actually I did cover most of them I simply place them in different catagories. Problem solving is inherent in all of them, but mainly #3. I consider logical reasoning as #1. But, yes, I did forget spacial manipulation, but I would consider it as visualization and toss it in with #3 as well.

#1 is where the point I was attempting to make comes in. The ability to cross-reference IMO has to include a function for throwing out the illogiacl things that have been taught to you. The realization from learning other things that something that was taught to you (racism, or whatever else) does not fit the profile and should be questioned and then rejected.

One example I could give was when I took basic psychology. When it was pointed out that folk-lore sounded logical because it would take both sides of an issue, it caused me to view many things that I thought I knew from a new angle. Some of those concepts then got rejected because they failed the new test I had learned. Even if it was not taught to apply in that instance.

[Geoff332]

We might be getting closer, but I still have yet to see any evidence of this assertion.

You are now stating that racism is illogical (racisim, incidentally, has not been defined either). That gives you a hypothesis to work with.

However, I could equally hypothesise that behavioural differences between racial groups (caused by both hereditary and cultural factors) make conflict between racial groups inevitable. Therefore it is logical (and sensible) that racial groups be segregated.

Perhaps more critically, I could argue that there are a lot of other factors that contribute to racists attitudes (for example, the broad societal attitude; the specific attitudes of your local culture) and these drown out any possible effect of intelligence.

Extending that a little further, I could propose that when one is more intelligent, they are exposed to a different context (eg more likely to participate in tertiary education), and this context is the dominant causal factor. The relationship between racism and intelligence is co-incidental.

Now we have four hypothesise. One says that intelligence is positively associated with racism. One says it is negatively associated with racism. A third says it is not associated at all. The fourth says that there is an xpected co-incidence, but there is no causal relationship. Which of these is correct? Well, we could argue about this for weeks on end and get no-where. But luckily, this is an empirical question, which can be solved by evidence -- the evidence I have been asking for.

There's not much point in dragging this out much longer. 'Political correctness' is a badly applied label, most of the time. The underlying principle of it when applied correctly is to prevent people from making unjustified statement -- either explicitly or implicitly. In the specific example we used, you asserted a direct relationship between two phenomena (intelligence and racism), yet provided no substantive evidence for that relationship (and, to be honest, took a lot of pushing to even explain what you really meant). I suspect you still believe that intelligence and racism are related -- but you have provided nothing that should convince anyone else of this idea.

[RebelWithanAK]

There is no "race." The genetic differences inherent in this species are so minute as to be irrelevant. It's not as if Spaniards can't fuck Aztecs, ferchrissakes.

However, there is culture, but the standards to which one can judge any other culture is always based on his own - biased - cultural values. This is not to say that ignoring people's culture is the answer; the answer most people attribute to "political correctness." The entire point of political correctness, since y'all love semantics so much, is to be diplomatic so as not to offend.

What we find repulsive and backwards (burkas) has its own correlation with what foreign cultures find so wrong with us (hotpants). This is not to say we cannot pass judgement; it merely means that we must understand the fact that as we do so we are speaking from a point of view that is not necessarily the paragon of morality, decency, intelligence, and discretion.

'Course, that's just my two cents.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

RebalWithanAK
Race was never meant to mean "genus" which you imply. Race is simply a 'species' that has adapted to a different environment, or even the same environment from a different starting point. A Toy Poodle can breed with a Great Dane, they are different species of dogs. A word is defined by use, not the other way around. Trying to make it go away by claiming the word does not exist is like closing your eyes so that nobody can find you.