Does anyone know of this guy, or agree with his statements on racial differences in IQ?

by Sugar Shane 104 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  recovering

  I am surprised that no one has pointed out how most IQ tests have built in bias . This is unintentional and is hard to negate. The tests often test not intellectual potential ,but what has already been learned. Take a look at what Prof. Martin Shapiro of Emory University, says.

  According to other research, items which facilitate ranking and sorting are often items which, perhaps unintentionally, factor non-school learning and social background into the questions. Such items help create consistency in test results, but they often are based on the experiences of white middle-to-upper class children, who also typically have access to a stronger academic education.

  For in depth information on this please read the following

  http://fairtest.org/racial-bias-built-tests

  http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testing-accurate-or.html
  
• 

  Sugar Shane

  I am surprised that no one has pointed out how most IQ tests have built in bias . This is unintentional and is hard to negate. The tests often test not intellectual potential ,but what has already been learned.

  Good point. I wonder if that kind of bias could’ve been a factor in Dr. JP Ruston’s claims of race & IQ.

  
  
• 

  Simon

  It says NOTHING about people being identical

  Thanks, so you accept that people are different. But can't accept that groups can be different?

  There is neither equality of ability or equality of outcome, the words were aspirational to apply to equality of treatment. As such, they have little bearing on this discussion so you were misusing them.
• 

  Simon

  I am surprised that no one has pointed out how most IQ tests have built in bias

  Yeah, but now everything is racist. Last week 'water' was racist, I didn't bother to click the headline that the liberal loonies were liking and retweeting to find out why but claiming something is racist isn't really an argument anymore.

  Just because something could be used in a racist way doesn't mean it was created because of a desire for it to be used in that way. You're claiming the results are racist but you are not making a good argument that the results are incorrect.

  By some definition, anything that shows differences between races is going to be 'racist' to some, but that is different to whether the research is correct and valid or not.
  
• 

  recovering

  Wait a minute. Who said anything about it being racist. I in fact said it was unintentional. In was pointing out reasons why IQ tests may not be accurate in assessing intelligence of other cultures. Characterizing what I posted as liberal ( especially with out reading my sources) is not adding anything to the argument. Why must everything discussed here be made political?
• 

  Simon

  Wait a minute. Who said anything about it being racist
  

  Saying that something is biased against a particular race seems very much like saying "it's racist".
• 

  recovering

  No it is not. I was pointing out how cultural bias and prior learning, can unintentionally effect the test results. I do not think the test authors where trying to write racist questions. I am merely presenting other possibilities of why there is a difference in the scores between cultures.

  Here is how the American Psychological Association describes how cultural bias can effect testing.

  IQ, or intelligence quotient, tests may be culturally biased because they measure cognitive functions through Western standards without regard to the differing values and beliefs other cultures around the world use to measure intelligence. In the United States, for instance, intelligence is measured in terms of ability to engage in enlightened debate and understand categories.
  While Western perceptions of intelligence rest in logic and categorization, Europeans measure intelligence through citizens' ability to perform their social roles and perceive actions and behaviors that contradict social norms. In the Asian nations, intelligence levels correlate with respect; people who show high levels of empathy and respect for other individuals, in Eastern traditions, have the highest level of intelligence

  
  
• 

  Simon

  I am merely presenting other possibilities of why there is a difference in the scores between cultures.

  Because you can't accept that there are differences?

  Some of the studies were based on US army recruits so 'national cultures' would be less of an issue. People have also pointed out research done on twins etc...

  But isn't the difference between cultures the result of the research? You're trying to suggest that the results, which show differences, invalidate the results because they show a difference? Seems a bit 'circular' and ideological - it's never acceptable to find that different groups are different.
• 

  recovering

  No I fully accept that there are differences in the test results. I am presenting that the tests are culturally ethnocentric in their evaluation techniques and may not measure true intelligence.

  Are you going to dispute that if I was raised in a poor uneducated family that spoke ebonics; educated in a poor school l system, that I might not understand the vocabulary used in a test? Are you going to say this will have no effect on my test scores?
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Sugar Shane:
  

  Since you started this thread, I decided to move your comments about Stephan Molyneux (SM from here on out) to this thread. On the other thread, you asserted he is a cult leader and posted some references. I said I would look them over and give you my thoughts. I spent the time and watched the videos. I also read the anti-FDR site, and even watched some videos posted there. But first, your most recent comments regarding SM on the other thread:
  

  Because...while he uses accurate charts, graphs, and statistics, his REASONS for the various trends are pure conjecture. In other words...he’s pulling it out of his ass.

  What you are saying above is that you don't agree with his conclusions regarding the statistics. OK - that is fine. What you can't do is say, "I don't agree with him, therefore cult!" You may have noticed that there is a lot of that on this forum lately. Someone posts an anti-Trump post. Said poster gets questioned. Poster then says, "Cult! Just like JWs! Just like JWS!!!" No, you don't get to do that, at least not with me. I'm not having it.

  Renember all the Washtowel articles, where a scientist, or scholar is quoted, yet the quote is taken way out of context, or the reference to said quote is of questionable validity? That’s what I’m talking about.

  Yes, I remember those. Can you give an example, perhaps with the Crime presentation, on something taken out of context? Can you give an example of a conclusion you disagree with? Again, if you are just going to assert he is taking facts and "pulling things out of his ass" you have to back it up, at least if you want me to pay attention. On the Crime video, there is a link to extensive sources, most of which are government statistics. What exactly is not valid about what he said in the video?
  

  It is fine to say, "Something is wrong in that video, and here it is: <list of all things wrong>". It is not OK to say, "He is doing what the Washtowel used to do and he is a cult!". Or at least if you do say the latter, back it up.
  

  As for name calling, Joe Rogan said that “only dumb people,” buy what Stefan is spouting. Hey man, don’t shoot the messenger.

  Yeah, I watched the video with Anna. I heard him say that. More on that later (because I said I would watch your videos).

  I guess your right, hybridous. After all, Hitler, JF Rutherford, David Miscavige, Reverend Jim Jones ALL had some good points. Maybe Hitler was kinda right about the Jews.

  How does this add to your point? People make points and arguments online. They could be right. You can't dismiss them because some other person or group has also made good points too. If that is the criteria for ignoring someone, then that would mean that you can't listen to anyone.
  

  Now onto the videos you posted. Since Hassan has been referenced here (and praised, and probably rightly so) in relation to JWs and the cult mindset, I was interested in the reasons he listed for SM being a cult leader. For reference, SM did a JRE episode where he explains his positions.

  That was JRE #538, linked here:
  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbR_j12JXk
  

  The Hassan episode is #680, linked here:
  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQrsGjT0Sn4
  

  For anyone not wanting to wade through the entire episode, the relevant talk about SM begins at 1:39:00 and runs to around 2:00:00. Hassan's only problem seems to be the de-FOOing (Family Of Origin), which, if you watch the video, by the time they get to the end of the talk about SM, both JR and Hassan talk themselves into SM's exact policy regarding cutting contact with Family Of Origin. Hassan starts by taking the stand that you never cut contact at all, because that's cultish. Then JR, siding with SM, pushes back and inquires about abusive family members, mental, emotional, and physical. JR has a hard time accepting that you wouldn't want to cut these types of people off. And, in the end, Hassan basically says that if you had abusive family members you should try to handle it in the context of a competent therapist, and cut off contact if these family members continue to be abusive... which is exactly SM's position as stated in episode #538. *face palm*
  

  One of the highlights is when Hassan said near the beginning of the SM section in JR (around 1:40:00), that listening to SM, he will present arguments and will change your views and thought processes. Yep, and? That's called making an argument. And if that is cultish, then hell, we are all cult leaders. That would also mean, "cult" has lost all relevant meaning, and we are back to why it pisses me off so much when people just scream insult labels.
  

  Another telling exchange between JR and Hassan took place a few minutes into their discussion about SM, in which Hassan cautions against people like SM who might "want your trust fund." JR corrected him and said he gives away everything for free. You donate if you want, and that's it. Hassan basically said that he didn't want to misrepresent, and it could be the case, he didn't know. But there you go, you'd think you should look into those kind of details before labeling someone a cult leader.
  

  Now, Hassan asserted that SM lied about de-FOOing in JRE #538. OK, so I burned some more time looking for audio, documents, video, anything indicating that he was lying, but found none. There were plenty of people that don't like SM, but so what?

  At this point, I'm struggling to find evidence to prove a negative, and that really shouldn't be the case. You, or Hassan, or anyone should provide some evidence. I think I'm done searching to prove your case.

  Sheesh, and let's say for the sake of argument, that there are videos out there from a long time ago where he advocates cutting off a family member without a therapist, or something like that. Well, that's clearly not his stance now. So, if that is out there, why should he be labeled a cult leader for changing his mind, if in fact, he ever did?
  

  Next you posted Anna's video from the Young Turks. Here is the link:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exUMuE4QRD4

  You are right, Rogan does say that "If you listen to him you're dumb". That's amazing to me. Yet when talking to Hassan he said, "He's got a lot of good ideas about a lot of things." I don't know, definitely no reasons in that video. Plenty of dismissals based on political and economic philosophies. Take a look at the comments on that video. Here is a sample:

  Came here as a fan of Stefan open to listening to whatever criticisms of him there are.
  Wherein Ana and Joe condescendingly called me stupid for entertaining Stefan's thoughts (basically acting exactly as they claimed he acted and thus lambasted him for) and did not get a single worthwhile argument against him.
  Thank you Ana and Joe, you have further cemented my respect and support for Stefan!

  Molyneux is too smart for these 2 and I don't even like Molyneux that much.

  Let's not be coy - I think you are just trying to smear the guy. "Nothing to see here guys, it's a cult!"