IQ does show differences between the races. However, this isn’t evidence that white supremacy is correct. It’s evidence that IQ testing measures culture when it’s supposed to be measuring biology.
Race is constructed. Genetic, evolutionary, anthropological, and archeological evidence all point to shared ancestry and kinship. All the people’s of the world aren’t separated by near enough distance or time to explain a significant biological difference. And that’s ignoring the wide interbreeding that was always a thing. Remember Rome was cosmopolitan empire. Many of those Roman soldiers who marched down the first paved roads of London were swinging black cocks.
So what can we make of a so called “objective” measure of a “biologically determined” trait that hews to culture above biology? This isn’t just a bias that needs to be tweaked, the whole concept of biologically determined intelligence is a reification fallacy and IQ as an instrument is hopelessly broken and should be abandoned.
It’s frustrating how common IQ based things are still. For example, I’m autistic, and getting any kind of support as an autistic adult has been a nightmare. In my particular area, some of the services I’ve been referred to will immediately bounce my referral because they’re services for people with “Learning Disabilities”, and they often have an IQ limit of 70, i.e. if your IQ is greater than 70, they won’t help you.
My problem here isn’t that there exists specific services for people with Learning disabilities, because I recognise that someone with Down syndrome is going to have pretty different support needs to me. What does ick me out is the way that IQ is used as a boundary condition as if it hasn’t been thoroughly debunked for years now.
I recently read “The Tyranny of Metrics” and whilst I don’t recall of it specifically delves into IQ, it’s definitely the same shape problem: people like to pin things down and quantify them, especially complex variables like intelligence. Then we are so desperate to quantify things that we succumb to Goodhart’s law (whenever a metric is used as a target, it will cease to be a good metric), condemning what was already an imperfect metric to become utterly useless and divorced from the system it was originally attempting to model or measure. When IQ was created, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it was. It has been made worse by years of bigots seeking validation, because it turns out that science is far from objective and is fairly easy to commandeer to do the work of bigots (and I say this as a scientist.)
I have to admit you got me with that first sentence.
Me too. I was fairly raging until I read the rest.
IQ does show differences between the races.
This sentence is misleading. And you do a good job explaining that in the next couple paragraphs.
But I would avoid opening with this declaration because it’s basically scientific racism. There are no “races”. Apparent differences are a social construction due to oppression largely based on skin tone. Apparently you know all this so I’m just providing some advice.
AI seems to be doing very well supporting right wing b.s. Who could have possibly seen that coming?
Who could have possibly seen that coming?
99% of people didn’t even see chatGPT coming just a few years back.
Mostly anything support right wing bullshit because they just listen to the parts that matters to them. I sure AI say plenty of things that would be against right wing discourse but they simply not care.
It’s not scientific racism, it’s racism justified by pseudoscientific bullshit.
