Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books

[Alcon]

Perking up a bit here at your mention of malaria as an explanatory variable in regional IQ differences.  There's a study that successfully controlled to find malaria as a factor, in a way that somehow eliminates the possibility of genetic intelligence being a factor?  How?

I'm not sure how you justify the statement "there's no indication of genetic intelligence," if you're simultaneously accepting the malaria studies you allude to as compelling, unless you're presenting a really narrow definition of "genetic intelligence" I'm unaware of.

[Alcon]

Yes, I understand that and I've seen the same studies, but proposing that malaria counts

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

I absolutely buy the possibility that neurological sequelae from disease can affect IQ.  I also understand how that's not genetic (obviously).  I'm just a little puzzled by your apparent implication that the factors you listed somehow add up to preclude a genetic basis for IQ.  It seems like you're throwing the kitchen sink (that is, every possible argument against heritable intelligence) at the issue in a preemptive attempt to discredit some argument.  That's a really unsound way of analyzing things, and it doesn't successfully discredit the argument you're trying to dismiss.

I mean, you may think Bobloblaw is trying to make some terrible racist point (maybe), but you can't really forward a set of explanatory variables, have someone point out your explanatory variables fail to explain some observed variation, and then act like that's an unreasonable critique of your argument.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence".

Are you claiming that there isn't evidence that IQ has some very strong heritable elements, or are you somehow limiting this to race when you say "genetic intelligence"?

It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Could you explain what you mean here more precisely?  Obviously, it's a bad idea to use IQ as a pretext to do manipulative, disruptive, and violating social policy, and there are a lot of racist jerks who would be into that kind of social policy.  But how is that "anti-science" to not pursue those policies?  It's not anti-science to elect to not use a technology because it's a terrible idea.  That would be like saying it's "anti-science" to not shoot a flamethrower on a crowded street.  It's not "anti-science" to not fire a flamethrower recklessly just because a flamethrower is a form of science.  It would be "anti-science" to deny the existence of the flamethrower, or deny its observable effects.  ("Anti-science" is probably the wrong phrase, anyway.  Let's go with "willfully delusional.")

Or are you saying that, even if studies were to find an unexplained linkage between IQ and race after controls, we should do our best to discredit these findings, because they would feed into policies and attitudes you don't like?  Just to be clear, I totally think that kind of finding would feed into racist jerks...but does that warrant dismissing any such finding, and accusing those who observed it of being lying, racist jerks?  I think there are obvious, glaring, gross problems with that approach, too.

[Alcon]

In the context of this discussion, I'm referring to race. I agree that there's probably some sort of heritable intelligence but this information makes me very uncomfortable. As far as race is concerned, I don't think there's any connection. Adopted children from Africa do as well as white children on IQ tests.

I appreciate your honesty in saying certain findings make you uncomfortable.  To be clear -- this is probably obvious, but I want to say it -- just because I think evidence points one way doesn't mean I like that it does.

This isn't an area of expertise for me, but I've read a few studies on adoption and I do not know which study you're referring to.  I do not recall a study that indicates no IQ difference for children adopted from Africa.  But I can't remember or find an adoption study that measured that.  I'm aware of studies of children adopted from Asia that showed a competing conclusion; I think the adoptees, many of whom were malnourished, outscored their European counterparts in their new home.  Like I said, I don't have exhaustive knowledge, but

No offense Alcon but I don't really care about which argumentative approach you find to be "unsound". This is a forum on the internet. I try to present my arguments in a manner that makes them readable and that presents a narrative. This isn't a court room or a logic class. I'm simply presenting a series of ideas in a narrative format. My narrative is pretty simple: there are a litany of deep flaws that characterize genetic tests. Because I'm not a geneticist or a scientist, I cannot really dig deep into these flaws. I'm a laymen and my role in this conversation is to present some evidence in a nice, readable format.

I didn't say your argumentative approach was unsound.  I said your analysis was unsound.  It is a problem to arbitrarily endorse a certain set of results.  Basically, if you can't explain why you endorse one argument/viewpoint over another besides you prefer to believe one is true, it doesn't seem to be reasonable to be anything but agnostic about the issue.  Maybe you do have a good explanation...but "malaria as an explanatory variable" doesn't suggest you're well-versed enough on this to dismiss the genetic hypothesis like you were.

Which is totally fine!  I just get the sense that you want to reach a conclusion here, and you're finding evidence that matches the conclusion you want.  I also understand why that's really attractive on this issue.  Like you say, this is an issue that could fuel some pretty awful behavior/policy.  But I also have some serious qualms about being disingenuous about empirical evidence -- not just on principle, but also because that can make for some problematic public policy, as well.  And on principle, too...I feel weird about knowingly ignoring/lying about reality.

[Alcon]

I suppose you have a point but I'm a bit puzzled about this discussion. There are hundreds of posts on this forum that are ill-thought out, immature, childish and dumb: why did you choose to reply to mine? Admittedly, my argument was an "on a napkin" one that drew from random information I've read on the internet. I didn't formulate a coherent argument because I say things that are off the top of my head on forums. I don't get why you're lecturing me about the nature of empirical evidence. This isn't an essay that I'm submitting for a grade or whatever.

You drew on arbitrary evidence (and, in one case, evidence that I'm not even sure exists) to reach a conclusion you've already decided you wanted to reach, and then stated (wrongly) that your conclusion was the only reasonable one based on available evidence.  I responded to you because:

1. That's not accurate, and people who read your post but know little about this subject might get the wrong idea.

2. I don't think that "I have good intentions" is necessarily a good excuse to be knowingly disingenuous or half-assed about your argument.  (Neither is the fact that this isn't for a grade.  I'm not demanding you be an expert; I wouldn't be criticizing you if you had just admitted you don't know enough to have a conclusive opinion.)

3. I replied to this is the thread I happened to open and read.  I responded to your post because the argument was bad and was going mostly unchallenged.  I don't only respond to posts if they're committing the World's Greatest Evil.  If either of us applied such a strict test of utility, neither of us would be posting on an internet forum.

And I'm lecturing you on the nature of empirical evidence because you were abusing empirical evidence.  If you don't need to be lectured on evidence, then I guess you were knowingly abusing evidence?  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, you "caught me" in my devious attempt to defeat a racist troll on the internet with an impromptu post but I'm not sure what has been accomplished. If you'd like to discuss the issue, I'm okay with that but that's not the sense I've gotten from engaging in this conversation with you.

I just spent time dismantling the premise of your argument.  It's kind of ridiculous that you're accusing me of not wanting to discuss the issue, in response to me arguing that you're failing to discuss the issue.  In what sense are you "discussing the issue" more than me -- by adopting a position and then shoe-horning evidence to fit it?

I am more than happy to discuss any aspect of this issue that you want.  I already alluded to my concerns about the public policy repercussions here, and can expand on that if you want.  I've been discussing the issue, and I'm open to discussing it more.  I just don't think "discussion" should take the form of deciding what I want to believe, and finding random evidence to support that position.  That's less like an intellectually honest conversation to me, and more like one of those standardized testing 'persuasive' essays they had us write as fifth-graders.

[Alcon]

Dude, I really just don't read the forum that much, and this is the thread I happened to read.  That's the "optics" of it.  I'm not trying to bully you.  I'm just critiquing your argument.  I'm not trying to mock the emotional commitments you have on these issues.  I even said I understand them, because there are some truly gross people who really want there to be a racial IQ gap, and then want to abuse that information.  But I'm sure you can appreciate why I think there's good reason not to be disingenuous about evidence, and it's not because I want to prove that I'm a bigger man than you or whatever.  I don't think poorly of you at all, and this defensiveness is unnecessary.