In H & M they make it exceedingly clear that the IQ test is not intended as a test of intellect, but as a predictor of certain outcomes, a role which it fulfills admirably. If you were to read the entire book with attention you would know this. You also conveniently forget to mention that in H & M they place the european IQ rank as centered between the low end of the scale and the high end of the scale, occupied by several eastern racial groups. The nature and scale of racial bias depicted by multiple IQ tests in multiple geographic areas is covered quite extensively and very diplomatically in the book. They go to lengths to make it clear that they merely depict well documented results without any agenda. Presenting a viewpoint leaning in one direction or another is really very easy. Presenting a fair and unbiased view (as, in my opinion, H & M do really well) takes extensive research and a great deal of care. If you are in doubt, you could perhaps watch the Lex Fridman interview on this topic, which I think you will find quite informative. It is easily found on YT. Reading the book is also a good start.
In addition to your excellent points, its also important to note that the variance in IQ within each racial group is far larger than the difference between groups. Meaning that a random persons skin color is a very bad predictor of their IQ. A point that was also made in The Bell Curve, but missed entirely by its critics.
@@jesperengelbredt You make an excellent point, the different curves overlap extensively, and no general comment about a particular grouping of whatever nature makes any pronouncement at all about the possible talents of individuals in that group. I have been observing people for a very long time, and I have learned to respect that fact.
Firstly, thank you for engaging with my content and taking the time to voice your thoughts. Secondly, I think there have been some misunderstandings but your comment has helped me realise where I should've been clearer at points, so thanks again. Your first point, that H & M describe the IQ test as an attempt to predict certain outcomes, is a view that I echo when I describe IQ tests as instrumental for fulfilling a particular function. However, when I also describe IQ tests as being used to test people's intellectual ability and essentially their "worth", I am describing how IQ tests seem to work in practice. IQ tests are used to separate children into "higher" and "lower" school classes, school grades (which are based on IQ tests) are used to determine the opportunities available to students, and IQ tests are used to decide who to employ, etc. Whether they "should" be used for these purposes is a normative question, but my observation is that you cannot say IQ tests are simply used to predict certain outcomes without mentioning that these predictions will heavily affect how individuals view themselves and others - a point I make when discussing the feedback loop. IQ scores undoubtedly impact how individuals perceive the worth of themselves or others. As much as we say they shouldn't be a test of intellect or one's worth in society, they are used for such activities regardless. But let me make it clear that I am not accusing H & M of thinking this is a good thing. Your second point, insinuating that I purposefully omitted the part of the Bell Curve suggesting East Asians have a higher IQ on average than White Europeans, is problematic given that the screenshot at 2:08 clearly states this. Surely if I was purposefully trying to omit this point, I wouldn't have used this screenshot which so clearly shows it? That being said, perhaps I should've made it clearer that I don't think H & M are ardent white supremacists. However, I still take issue with the idea that we must separate people into races and see how their IQ scores compare... But this brings me to my last point which seeks to answer the rest of your comment. H & M's effort to "depict well-documented results without any agenda" is just so vague. Okay so H & M acknowledge that there are some environmental factors resulting in unfair advantages for certain races compared to others throughout history (and in the present) - but how on Earth are you meant to account for this in data analysis? It just seems so problematic to me to say that we're gonna include IQ scores from the 1920s but we'll somehow analyse and clean the data so that it accounts for environmental factors... Why would you use these tests at all!? I really appreciate your comment, it's genuinely made me think more about this topic and ways I could've improved the video, as well as how I can improve videos moving forward.
@@jesperengelbredt I'm confused as to why one would write a whole book trying to show IQ differences between multiple races, to then also say race is a very bad predictor of IQ... why write the book then?
@@SuspectedStories Excellent reply. A couple of remarks. 1. I missed your implications in terms of the graph depicted. Point taken. 2. In general, it is my understanding that students are very seldom told what their IQ results are. Murray, in interviews, not only echoed this but stated that he feels that in most cases people should not know their IQ. I think I agree with him - I happen to know my own IQ, and it is a mixed blessing, quite probably causing bias in my interaction with many if not most people. Also some other mostly negative side effects. 3. Regarding any hidden agenda, I would strongly recommend that you watch one of the early (comprehensive) interviews with Murray about the book, and/or the Lex Fridman interview. Watching both of these would be good. It is my impression that a great deal of care was taken with the data and its representation. You are probably aware that Herrnstein died shortly after the book was published, so one has to accept that Murray speaks for him as well. 4. In terms of dividing school classes, I can only speak for my own schooling, during which this division was strictly and only based on scholastic performance (exam results) and not at all on IQ results. I cannot speak for other countries, of course. Finally, just for the record, I read the entire book with attention shortly after publication, and I have since skimmed through a couple of chapters to refresh my memory on some topics. I have seen two interviews with Murray as well as the whole of the Lex Fridman interview. As far as it is possible, I think I have a reasonable understanding of H & M's intended message.
I think the link between Race and Intelligence has to do more with Hardware rather than software. I do belive that there is some default programing of the brain when one is born, disregarding the blank sleight theory of Neurostructure emergence. Additionally the theory that more closely resembles the reality ive experienced is Rupert Sheldrakes Morphic Resonance. It states animals have a informatic/energy bio field that determines most traits, from body shape to mind and personality. The more an individual animal resembles another there is greater resonance between them, providing greater resonance between family ties, communities and the species as a whole. The concept of intelligence has many definitions, so it it dificult to determine wheter an individual is more intelligent than another without the use of specific testing such as IQ. Modern society tipically determines intelligence to be more associated with logical problem. I do belive cultures that have a greater appreaciation for this specific type of intelligence produce individuals that value it more and as a result these traits are integrated with the specific culture or greater community that can be conceptualized as a race. If we think in accordance to the theory of Morphic Resonance, first we can conclude that specific "races" or what typically associate as a "race" can be a field of resonance that we recognize to be distinct to other fields of resonance in a specific community. The thing is that we as humans have the capability to grow and adapt into other resonance which will allow us to transform. Logical reasoning intelligence is one of the softest traits in terms of possible transformation, a harder trait of transformation would be for example growing another finger. Rupert Sheldrake also makes the assumption that fields of Morphic resonance are formed and mantained through habits, soem habits are therefore much more stronger than others. So in conclussion in this context intelligence is not a hard trait to habituate in any human regardless of "race" but there are trends depending on the individual specific community morphic field.
The ability to answer questions calls forth the idea of "self awareness" and there lies the conundrum when a person asks a question, it takes reflection (time) and experience to generate alternatives. Also we are all ignorant (have the capacity to ignore things, ideas and people) and the less you care the more freeing your mind becomes En "light" -enment; to make your thoughts light (like space/ the wind) etc ... Ideally, tests would be not needed as the mind can see itself like the Buddha speaks or Brian Tracy or Victor Frankl. Thomas Khun calls it "the paradigm shift". take care
H & M's proof of "major differences in IQ between races" is based on their predictions and analysis, it's not a fact. Their "accounting for environmental factors" is in no way objectively correct, how could it be? I am biased, you are too, and so are H & M! I think its important to note this for our own humility.
In H & M they make it exceedingly clear that the IQ test is not intended as a test of intellect, but as a predictor of certain outcomes, a role which it fulfills admirably. If you were to read the entire book with attention you would know this. You also conveniently forget to mention that in H & M they place the european IQ rank as centered between the low end of the scale and the high end of the scale, occupied by several eastern racial groups.
The nature and scale of racial bias depicted by multiple IQ tests in multiple geographic areas is covered quite extensively and very diplomatically in the book. They go to lengths to make it clear that they merely depict well documented results without any agenda.
Presenting a viewpoint leaning in one direction or another is really very easy. Presenting a fair and unbiased view (as, in my opinion, H & M do really well) takes extensive research and a great deal of care.
If you are in doubt, you could perhaps watch the Lex Fridman interview on this topic, which I think you will find quite informative. It is easily found on YT. Reading the book is also a good start.
In addition to your excellent points, its also important to note that the variance in IQ within each racial group is far larger than the difference between groups. Meaning that a random persons skin color is a very bad predictor of their IQ. A point that was also made in The Bell Curve, but missed entirely by its critics.
@@jesperengelbredt You make an excellent point, the different curves overlap extensively, and no general comment about a particular grouping of whatever nature makes any pronouncement at all about the possible talents of individuals in that group.
I have been observing people for a very long time, and I have learned to respect that fact.
Firstly, thank you for engaging with my content and taking the time to voice your thoughts. Secondly, I think there have been some misunderstandings but your comment has helped me realise where I should've been clearer at points, so thanks again.
Your first point, that H & M describe the IQ test as an attempt to predict certain outcomes, is a view that I echo when I describe IQ tests as instrumental for fulfilling a particular function. However, when I also describe IQ tests as being used to test people's intellectual ability and essentially their "worth", I am describing how IQ tests seem to work in practice. IQ tests are used to separate children into "higher" and "lower" school classes, school grades (which are based on IQ tests) are used to determine the opportunities available to students, and IQ tests are used to decide who to employ, etc. Whether they "should" be used for these purposes is a normative question, but my observation is that you cannot say IQ tests are simply used to predict certain outcomes without mentioning that these predictions will heavily affect how individuals view themselves and others - a point I make when discussing the feedback loop. IQ scores undoubtedly impact how individuals perceive the worth of themselves or others. As much as we say they shouldn't be a test of intellect or one's worth in society, they are used for such activities regardless. But let me make it clear that I am not accusing H & M of thinking this is a good thing.
Your second point, insinuating that I purposefully omitted the part of the Bell Curve suggesting East Asians have a higher IQ on average than White Europeans, is problematic given that the screenshot at 2:08 clearly states this. Surely if I was purposefully trying to omit this point, I wouldn't have used this screenshot which so clearly shows it? That being said, perhaps I should've made it clearer that I don't think H & M are ardent white supremacists. However, I still take issue with the idea that we must separate people into races and see how their IQ scores compare...
But this brings me to my last point which seeks to answer the rest of your comment. H & M's effort to "depict well-documented results without any agenda" is just so vague. Okay so H & M acknowledge that there are some environmental factors resulting in unfair advantages for certain races compared to others throughout history (and in the present) - but how on Earth are you meant to account for this in data analysis? It just seems so problematic to me to say that we're gonna include IQ scores from the 1920s but we'll somehow analyse and clean the data so that it accounts for environmental factors... Why would you use these tests at all!?
I really appreciate your comment, it's genuinely made me think more about this topic and ways I could've improved the video, as well as how I can improve videos moving forward.
@@jesperengelbredt I'm confused as to why one would write a whole book trying to show IQ differences between multiple races, to then also say race is a very bad predictor of IQ... why write the book then?
@@SuspectedStories Excellent reply.
A couple of remarks.
1. I missed your implications in terms of the graph depicted. Point taken.
2. In general, it is my understanding that students are very seldom told what their IQ results are. Murray, in interviews, not only echoed this but stated that he feels that in most cases people should not know their IQ. I think I agree with him - I happen to know my own IQ, and it is a mixed blessing, quite probably causing bias in my interaction with many if not most people. Also some other mostly negative side effects.
3. Regarding any hidden agenda, I would strongly recommend that you watch one of the early (comprehensive) interviews with Murray about the book, and/or the Lex Fridman interview. Watching both of these would be good. It is my impression that a great deal of care was taken with the data and its representation. You are probably aware that Herrnstein died shortly after the book was published, so one has to accept that Murray speaks for him as well.
4. In terms of dividing school classes, I can only speak for my own schooling, during which this division was strictly and only based on scholastic performance (exam results) and not at all on IQ results. I cannot speak for other countries, of course.
Finally, just for the record, I read the entire book with attention shortly after publication, and I have since skimmed through a couple of chapters to refresh my memory on some topics. I have seen two interviews with Murray as well as the whole of the Lex Fridman interview. As far as it is possible, I think I have a reasonable understanding of H & M's intended message.
I think the link between Race and Intelligence has to do more with Hardware rather than software.
I do belive that there is some default programing of the brain when one is born, disregarding the blank sleight theory of Neurostructure emergence.
Additionally the theory that more closely resembles the reality ive experienced is Rupert Sheldrakes Morphic Resonance. It states animals have a informatic/energy bio field that determines most traits, from body shape to mind and personality. The more an individual animal resembles another there is greater resonance between them, providing greater resonance between family ties, communities and the species as a whole.
The concept of intelligence has many definitions, so it it dificult to determine wheter an individual is more intelligent than another without the use of specific testing such as IQ. Modern society tipically determines intelligence to be more associated with logical problem. I do belive cultures that have a greater appreaciation for this specific type of intelligence produce individuals that value it more and as a result these traits are integrated with the specific culture or greater community that can be conceptualized as a race. If we think in accordance to the theory of Morphic Resonance, first we can conclude that specific "races" or what typically associate as a "race" can be a field of resonance that we recognize to be distinct to other fields of resonance in a specific community. The thing is that we as humans have the capability to grow and adapt into other resonance which will allow us to transform. Logical reasoning intelligence is one of the softest traits in terms of possible transformation, a harder trait of transformation would be for example growing another finger. Rupert Sheldrake also makes the assumption that fields of Morphic resonance are formed and mantained through habits, soem habits are therefore much more stronger than others. So in conclussion in this context intelligence is not a hard trait to habituate in any human regardless of "race" but there are trends depending on the individual specific community morphic field.
Thanks for sharing this! I'm not familiar with this theory but it sounds interesting, I'll put the book on my reading list!
Can psychologists successfully measure unconscious bias using tests? Surely that is a far more important thing to measure than intelligence?
The ability to answer questions calls forth the idea of "self awareness" and there lies the conundrum when a person asks a question, it takes reflection (time) and experience to generate alternatives.
Also we are all ignorant (have the capacity to ignore things, ideas and people) and the less you care the more freeing your mind becomes
En "light" -enment; to make your thoughts light (like space/ the wind) etc ...
Ideally, tests would be not needed as the mind can see itself like the Buddha speaks or Brian Tracy or Victor Frankl. Thomas Khun calls it "the paradigm shift". take care
Japan best, Africa worst.
You have not explained why there are major differences in IQ between races. Perhaps you are biased. Indeed, I assert that you are extremely biased
H & M's proof of "major differences in IQ between races" is based on their predictions and analysis, it's not a fact. Their "accounting for environmental factors" is in no way objectively correct, how could it be? I am biased, you are too, and so are H & M! I think its important to note this for our own humility.
Yes, East Asians on average have higher IQs than Caucasians.
This is one of the most well documented findings ever in psychology.