The BBC are fearful of the truth. It doesn’t fit their world view. Now Confas has been found crimeless, the Overton window has shifted. One can now say, ‘Blacks are two standard deviations less intelligent than whites” as a matter of fact. This position that IQ is meaningless is their new defensive trench.
Great article! (More of that, it is deeply needed!)
So, speaking of "defending IQ"...
I've just watched every video on YouTube that I could find Nathan Cofnas in, quite the rabbit-hole!
Bret Weinstein, quite obviously, did the best to counter Cofnas amongst any "adversary" Cofnas encountered;
According to Weinstein: Reaching "Carrying Capacity" would cause every ethno-racial (Weinstein prefers the term "lineage") population to possess the exact same average IQ, through Fuller's Ephemeralisation process.
I'm NOT familiar with Weinstein's concepts, I was taken aback; THAT is simply what got through my skull: I'm doing the best I can to NOT misrepresent him. (Clearly, don't trust me: Watch the YT conversation/debate yourselves!)
The point is: I've never had to engage with such critiques before, so I suppose they are novel... Hence, they too MUST be addressed – of course!
Personally, I didn't grasp why, according to Weinstein, somehow intelligence is "universally beneficial", hence will NOT statistically vary amongst any unique habitats humans find themselves evolving in – unlike, say, height.
Ah, advocacy journalism from the BBC at its best. Folks pontificating according to their emotional needs, not understanding of the topic at hand. Another promotion of egalitarianism if you will with a large dose of pure ignorance.
I used to think the societal problem of accepting inherent human intelligence differences would eventually resolve. Now I’m not so sure. Excellent rebuttal/summation on a complex topic. I look forward to reading more from you.
I thought cofnes easily got the best of Weinstein, and I listen to Bret alot. I think he gats alot wrong but he also gets alot right. The most interesting thing I picked up from Cofnes is how natural selection may have affected the general intelligence of populations over time. Those who faced winter without readily available food learned how or were forced to learn to plan for it. As for the controversy - we should focus on individuals and not the ethnic or racial group they belong to. There are individual Africans and their descendants who outperform most whites. Important to accept that not everyone can or should go to Harvard.
It was always likely that it was going to be a white female who'd be the one to try to start a bandwagon against IQ. The BBC have plenty of Asher"s type over recent years-Alice Roberts an obvious example.
Why are all of you so hell-bent on "proving" that nonwhite populations (possibly excepting Asians, a huge exception, or AI, similarly huge and growing exponentially) are intellectually inferior to white populations? No doubt you also think that white men are superior to white women and white elites to working-class whites. My own IQ has been measured several times in the 180s+ range, but I'm no match in the real world for so many people who have smarts and problem-solving abilities that are fully beyond my own, and even in my own academic and professional microsurroundings I have been modestly but not extraordinarily successful. I can imagine so many environments worldwide where I would be completely outclassed by the majority of locals, as I'm sure you would be as well. IQ tests share the racial/patriarchal/class biases of their times (unfortunately still including our own) and the scientists who developed them. They were designed to find just what they were looking for.
Well, it's the BBC.
The BBC are fearful of the truth. It doesn’t fit their world view. Now Confas has been found crimeless, the Overton window has shifted. One can now say, ‘Blacks are two standard deviations less intelligent than whites” as a matter of fact. This position that IQ is meaningless is their new defensive trench.
Great article! (More of that, it is deeply needed!)
So, speaking of "defending IQ"...
I've just watched every video on YouTube that I could find Nathan Cofnas in, quite the rabbit-hole!
Bret Weinstein, quite obviously, did the best to counter Cofnas amongst any "adversary" Cofnas encountered;
According to Weinstein: Reaching "Carrying Capacity" would cause every ethno-racial (Weinstein prefers the term "lineage") population to possess the exact same average IQ, through Fuller's Ephemeralisation process.
I'm NOT familiar with Weinstein's concepts, I was taken aback; THAT is simply what got through my skull: I'm doing the best I can to NOT misrepresent him. (Clearly, don't trust me: Watch the YT conversation/debate yourselves!)
The point is: I've never had to engage with such critiques before, so I suppose they are novel... Hence, they too MUST be addressed – of course!
Personally, I didn't grasp why, according to Weinstein, somehow intelligence is "universally beneficial", hence will NOT statistically vary amongst any unique habitats humans find themselves evolving in – unlike, say, height.
Ah, advocacy journalism from the BBC at its best. Folks pontificating according to their emotional needs, not understanding of the topic at hand. Another promotion of egalitarianism if you will with a large dose of pure ignorance.
I used to think the societal problem of accepting inherent human intelligence differences would eventually resolve. Now I’m not so sure. Excellent rebuttal/summation on a complex topic. I look forward to reading more from you.
'Far from it being the case that “IQ scores are only loosely correlated with academic achievement”, intelligence....'
Don't many social science studies use academic achievement as a proxy for intelligence?
I thought cofnes easily got the best of Weinstein, and I listen to Bret alot. I think he gats alot wrong but he also gets alot right. The most interesting thing I picked up from Cofnes is how natural selection may have affected the general intelligence of populations over time. Those who faced winter without readily available food learned how or were forced to learn to plan for it. As for the controversy - we should focus on individuals and not the ethnic or racial group they belong to. There are individual Africans and their descendants who outperform most whites. Important to accept that not everyone can or should go to Harvard.
It was always likely that it was going to be a white female who'd be the one to try to start a bandwagon against IQ. The BBC have plenty of Asher"s type over recent years-Alice Roberts an obvious example.
Why are all of you so hell-bent on "proving" that nonwhite populations (possibly excepting Asians, a huge exception, or AI, similarly huge and growing exponentially) are intellectually inferior to white populations? No doubt you also think that white men are superior to white women and white elites to working-class whites. My own IQ has been measured several times in the 180s+ range, but I'm no match in the real world for so many people who have smarts and problem-solving abilities that are fully beyond my own, and even in my own academic and professional microsurroundings I have been modestly but not extraordinarily successful. I can imagine so many environments worldwide where I would be completely outclassed by the majority of locals, as I'm sure you would be as well. IQ tests share the racial/patriarchal/class biases of their times (unfortunately still including our own) and the scientists who developed them. They were designed to find just what they were looking for.