• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hi, everyone.

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wicked_SFG

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Decorum, it would seem, requires that I pen at least a brief introduction. However, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that; I also fear that expatiation is
ineluctable. In lieu of a proper introduction, here are some facts, in no particular order, that might help demystify the man behind the moniker:

- The opening paragraph contains no use of poetic license. "Man" was meant quite literally; I'm a guy.

- The letters SFG in my nickname stand for Sir Francis Galton. The adjective preceding them is tongue-in-cheek and was borrowed from one of his detractors. I believe that a fair assessment vindicates Galton, assuming that he's indeed in need of vindication to begin with.

- Mental stimulation and having your worldview scrutinized are both mighty fine things, but I'd be lying if I said that they're my primary reasons for being here. Truth be told, I chiefly just need to use words with other sentient beings.

- The political orientation that I entered during the registration process reflects my actual views. I'm thus a libertarian. (It feels strange to condense your beliefs to a single label, but if I must, then that one works)

- I'm a firm believer in being hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I rarely pull my punches in a hopeless attempt to placate others. You're bound to get pilloried, so you might as well go all out.

That's everything that comes to mind at the moment. Seems a bit long, so perhaps expatiation was ineluctable after all. Oh, well.

Feel free to also share something/some things about yourself, if you're so inclined. 'Till we chat again!
 
What's the deal with Sir Francis Galton?

I skimmed the wiki. His eugenics appears more an early genetic study than anything racist. Sure, given the time he lived, racism is probably a part of it but that would appear to be more about the times than the man.

For what is he called wicked?
 
Basically, for daring to broach and explore certain subjects. Some people find that fact alone utterly repugnant. He's also perceived to have inspired other people whose endeavors are frowned upon by certain critics.

What also troubles me is the tendency to dismiss his monumental achievements and gainsay accounts of his mental prowess, all in the name of an ideological battle.
 
Welcome aboard.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Decorum, it would seem, requires that I pen at least a brief introduction. However, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that; I also fear that expatiation is
ineluctable. In lieu of a proper introduction, here are some facts, in no particular order, that might help demystify the man behind the moniker:

- The opening paragraph contains no use of poetic license. "Man" was meant quite literally; I'm a guy.

- The letters SFG in my nickname stand for Sir Francis Galton. The adjective preceding them is tongue-in-cheek and was borrowed from one of his detractors. I believe that a fair assessment vindicates Galton, assuming that he's indeed in need of vindication to begin with.

- Mental stimulation and having your worldview scrutinized are both mighty fine things, but I'd be lying if I said that they're my primary reasons for being here. Truth be told, I chiefly just need to use words with other sentient beings.

- The political orientation that I entered during the registration process reflects my actual views. I'm thus a libertarian. (It feels strange to condense your beliefs to a single label, but if I must, then that one works)

- I'm a firm believer in being hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I rarely pull my punches in a hopeless attempt to placate others. You're bound to get pilloried, so you might as well go all out.

That's everything that comes to mind at the moment. Seems a bit long, so perhaps expatiation was ineluctable after all. Oh, well.

Feel free to also share something/some things about yourself, if you're so inclined. 'Till we chat again!
Click to expand...



Just kidding.

In all seriousness, welcome aboard.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Basically, for daring to broach and explore certain subjects. Some people find that fact alone utterly repugnant. He's also perceived to have inspired other people whose endeavors are frowned upon by certain critics.

What also troubles me is the tendency to dismiss his monumental achievements and gainsay accounts of his mental prowess, all in the name of an ideological battle.
Click to expand...

What subject? What ideological battle?
 
ecofarm said:
What subject? What ideological battle?
Click to expand...

Well, one of Galton's most famous experiments dealt with "eminent people". Specifically, what accounts for the attainment of eminence? Do innate / biological / genetic / whatever you wanna call them factors play a role? If so, how significant is this role? Greater than the role environments play?

Some people appear to be under the impression that you cannot raise such questions - that is, questions about group difference in ability and their etiology - without harboring some nefarious racist intentions. The ideological battle, then, is a battle against a supposedly racist research program, whose main goal is to foment racial hatred.
 
Superfly said:


Just kidding.

In all seriousness, welcome aboard.
Click to expand...


Haha, thanks! I have to use words lest I lose the ability to use words. Or at least this is one thought that haunts me. My fear of aphasia is eminently greater than my fear of leaving a weird impression, I'm afraid.

On a side note, I would have posted a link to the Fawlty Towers episode where a visibly irate Basil asks a pompous guest, "why don't you talk properly?". :)
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Well, one of Galton's most famous experiments dealt with "eminent people". Specifically, what accounts for the attainment of eminence? Do innate / biological / genetic / whatever you wanna call them factors play a role? If so, how significant is this role? Greater than the role environments play?

Some people appear to be under the impression that you cannot raise such questions - that is, questions about group difference in ability and their etiology - without harboring some nefarious racist intentions.
Click to expand...

His study was concerned with the distance of relationship and correlation with traits. His discovery, of sorts, was that the more distant the relative, the fewer traits expressed. It had nothing to do with race.

After about 200 years of IQ and race studies, it's clear now there is not correlation between race and IQ. Studies from the past that claimed to indicate so were tragically, embarrassingly and sometimes fraudulently based.

I don't believe it can be said that he "inspired" later endeavors involving eugenics, in particular Hitler. The discovery of genetics playing a role in traits, and the distance in relative resulting in fewer exact traits, is not a basis for racism. That his discoveries, if we are to give him credit in this field, were expanded upon and took grossly ignorant form is not upon him.

The ideological battle, then, is a battle against a supposedly racist research program, whose main goal is to foment racial hatred.
Click to expand...

As I noted, I don't see that in his study. I see a correlation of traits and nearness of relative. And even if early genetics was perverted by racists, that's not his fault.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Well, one of Galton's most famous experiments dealt with "eminent people". Specifically, what accounts for the attainment of eminence? Do innate / biological / genetic / whatever you wanna call them factors play a role? If so, how significant is this role? Greater than the role environments play?

Some people appear to be under the impression that you cannot raise such questions - that is, questions about group difference in ability and their etiology - without harboring some nefarious racist intentions. The ideological battle, then, is a battle against a supposedly racist research program, whose main goal is to foment racial hatred.
Click to expand...

Of course, that presupposes that genetic rather than environmental differences must make the bigger difference. If it turned out that environment played a larger or even a major role then ruling monarchs having power passed on via the royal family was doomed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Of course, that presupposes that genetic rather than environmental differences must make the bigger difference. If it turned out that environment played a larger or even a major role then ruling monarchs having power passed on via the royal family was doomed.
Click to expand...

What he found was there were no guarantees and the farther from a relative the less likely a trait would be expressed. His study exposed the randomness of genetic trait passing and the likelihood of a smart person conceiving a stupid person. Certainly a shot at royalty of the time. I can see how that would get him in trouble.

On perusal, I don't see anything about race in that study or other studies.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Haha, thanks! I have to use words lest I lose the ability to use words. Or at least this is one thought that haunts me. My fear of aphasia is eminently greater than my fear of leaving a weird impression, I'm afraid.

On a side note, I would have posted a link to the Fawlty Towers episode where a visibly irate Basil asks a pompous guest, "why don't you talk properly?". :)
Click to expand...

:lol: Aw that's OK. Spongebob is more my speed, anyway. But hey - you do you! Speak as eloquently as you'd like. I'm just messing with you, anyway.
 
ecofarm said:
What he found was there were no guarantees and the farther from a relative the less likely a trait would be expressed. His study exposed the randomness of genetic trait passing and the likelihood of a smart person conceiving a stupid person. Certainly a shot at royalty of the time. I can see how that would get him in trouble.

On perusal, I don't see anything about race in that study or other studies.
Click to expand...

Race is probably scary because some 'wrong' racial traits are more genetically dominant than some 'right' racial traits. Start the racial mixing process and you may see some 'right' racial traits become very rare or, perhaps, disappear entirely.

https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/determining-dominant-and-recessive-traits
 
ecofarm said:
His study was concerned with the distance of relationship and correlation with traits. His discovery, of sorts, was that the more distant the relative, the fewer traits expressed. It had nothing to do with race.

After about 200 years of IQ and race studies, it's clear now there is not correlation between race and IQ. Studies from the past that claimed to indicate so were tragically, embarrassingly and sometimes fraudulently based.

I don't believe it can be said that he "inspired" later endeavors involving eugenics, in particular Hitler. The discovery of genetics playing a role in traits, and the distance in relative resulting in fewer exact traits, is not a basis for racism. That his discoveries, if we are to give him credit in this field, were expanded upon and took grossly ignorant form is not upon him.



As I noted, I don't see that in his study. I see a correlation of traits and nearness of relative. And even if early genetics was perverted by racists, that's not his fault.
Click to expand...

The possible implications of his study to contemporary debates about race are quite clear, it seems to me. It's a generally accepted fact that different groups have different average IQ scores. The main question is how to go about accounting for such differences, and whether it can be plausibly argued that genetic factors aren't only extant, but also important. Galton found that the environment doesn't play that big of a role in attaining eminence. The motivation to discredit such a conclusion should be clear. In one account of Galton's work (the one provided by David Moore), it's actually claimed that Galton was guilty of an egregious methodological blunder that never was, namely, failing to take the possible effect of environment into account. Moore concluded thereupon that Galton was simply biased and blinded by his racist beliefs.

Anyway, as I noted, that there exist differences in IQ between racial groups isn't seriously contested. The real debate is about their causes.
 
Last edited:
Wicked_SFG said:
The possible implications of his study to contemporary debates about race are quite clear, it seems to me. It's a generally accepted fact that different groups having different average IQ scores. The main question is how to go about accounting for such differences, and whether it can be plausibly argued that genetic factors aren't only extant, but also important. Galton found that the environment doesn't play that big of a role in attaining eminence. The motivation to discredit such a conclusion should be clear. In one account of Galton's work (the one provided by David Moore), it's actually claimed that Galton was guilty of an egregious methodological blunder that never was, namely, failing to take the possible effect of environment into account. Moore concluded thereupon that Galton was simply blinded by his racist beliefs.

Anyway, as I noted, that there exist differences in IQ between racial groups isn't seriously contested. The real debate is about their causes.
Click to expand...

IQ tests do not transcend socioeconomics, let alone culture or (in the case of at least one famous racist IQ study) language. The researchers figured the language was close enough so the results of Africans all being near retarded were valid.

The academic community has spent the past 2-3 decades trying to understand better why IQ tests do not transcend social circumstance.

We have determined there is no correlation between race and IQ. Claims otherwise are false and against a variety of modern science disciplines.

It appears you are doing Sir Galton a great disservice by associating your grossly false beliefs and his ancient studies which had nothing to do with race.
 
Last edited:
Wicked_SFG said:
Decorum, it would seem, requires that I pen at least a brief introduction. However, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that; I also fear that expatiation is
ineluctable. In lieu of a proper introduction, here are some facts, in no particular order, that might help demystify the man behind the moniker:

- The opening paragraph contains no use of poetic license. "Man" was meant quite literally; I'm a guy.

- The letters SFG in my nickname stand for Sir Francis Galton. The adjective preceding them is tongue-in-cheek and was borrowed from one of his detractors. I believe that a fair assessment vindicates Galton, assuming that he's indeed in need of vindication to begin with.

- Mental stimulation and having your worldview scrutinized are both mighty fine things, but I'd be lying if I said that they're my primary reasons for being here. Truth be told, I chiefly just need to use words with other sentient beings.

- The political orientation that I entered during the registration process reflects my actual views. I'm thus a libertarian. (It feels strange to condense your beliefs to a single label, but if I must, then that one works)

- I'm a firm believer in being hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I rarely pull my punches in a hopeless attempt to placate others. You're bound to get pilloried, so you might as well go all out.

That's everything that comes to mind at the moment. Seems a bit long, so perhaps expatiation was ineluctable after all. Oh, well.

Feel free to also share something/some things about yourself, if you're so inclined. 'Till we chat again!
Click to expand...

Well hello there....I am Hawkeye10, Proud member of the Zen Socialist party of which I am the only known member and I have been a Proud Member of The REBELLION since 9.10.15 another group that you might not know about, perhaps we will conversate about that at a later time......but mostly I am a well educated tenacious heretic, with a wide curiosity.

I can come across as an asshole, but seriously I am just trying to help.

Also I am a Truth Teller, this is the most radical thing about me.

WELCOME!
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Decorum, it would seem, requires that I pen at least a brief introduction. However, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that; I also fear that expatiation is
ineluctable. In lieu of a proper introduction, here are some facts, in no particular order, that might help demystify the man behind the moniker:

- The opening paragraph contains no use of poetic license. "Man" was meant quite literally; I'm a guy.

- The letters SFG in my nickname stand for Sir Francis Galton. The adjective preceding them is tongue-in-cheek and was borrowed from one of his detractors. I believe that a fair assessment vindicates Galton, assuming that he's indeed in need of vindication to begin with.

- Mental stimulation and having your worldview scrutinized are both mighty fine things, but I'd be lying if I said that they're my primary reasons for being here. Truth be told, I chiefly just need to use words with other sentient beings.

- The political orientation that I entered during the registration process reflects my actual views. I'm thus a libertarian. (It feels strange to condense your beliefs to a single label, but if I must, then that one works)

- I'm a firm believer in being hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I rarely pull my punches in a hopeless attempt to placate others. You're bound to get pilloried, so you might as well go all out.

That's everything that comes to mind at the moment. Seems a bit long, so perhaps expatiation was ineluctable after all. Oh, well.

Feel free to also share something/some things about yourself, if you're so inclined. 'Till we chat again!
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. You should find a lively interaction of wit and wisdom with the majority of the forum members. You've already had some of the best give you a welcome in this thread.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Decorum, it would seem, requires that I pen at least a brief introduction. However, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that; I also fear that expatiation is
ineluctable. In lieu of a proper introduction, here are some facts, in no particular order, that might help demystify the man behind the moniker:

- The opening paragraph contains no use of poetic license. "Man" was meant quite literally; I'm a guy.

- The letters SFG in my nickname stand for Sir Francis Galton. The adjective preceding them is tongue-in-cheek and was borrowed from one of his detractors. I believe that a fair assessment vindicates Galton, assuming that he's indeed in need of vindication to begin with.

- Mental stimulation and having your worldview scrutinized are both mighty fine things, but I'd be lying if I said that they're my primary reasons for being here. Truth be told, I chiefly just need to use words with other sentient beings.

- The political orientation that I entered during the registration process reflects my actual views. I'm thus a libertarian. (It feels strange to condense your beliefs to a single label, but if I must, then that one works)

- I'm a firm believer in being hanged for a sheep as a lamb. I rarely pull my punches in a hopeless attempt to placate others. You're bound to get pilloried, so you might as well go all out.

That's everything that comes to mind at the moment. Seems a bit long, so perhaps expatiation was ineluctable after all. Oh, well.

Feel free to also share something/some things about yourself, if you're so inclined. 'Till we chat again!
Click to expand...



vermillion
 
ecofarm said:
IQ tests do not transcend socioeconomics, let alone culture or (in the case of at least one famous racist IQ study) language. The researchers figured the language was close enough so the results of Africans all being near retarded were valid.

The academic community has spent the past 2-3 decades trying to understand better why IQ tests do not transcend social circumstance.

We have determined there is no correlation between race and IQ. Claims otherwise are false and against a variety of modern science disciplines.

It appears you are doing Sir Galton a great disservice by associating your grossly false beliefs and his ancient studies which had nothing to do with race.
Click to expand...

(1) If you contend that most intelligence researchers agree that tests are culturally biased (only measure culturally valuable information), and thus somehow seriously problematic / invalid, then this is simply false. A fairly recent treatment of the subject can be found in Stuart Ritchie's 2015 book, Intelligence: All That Matters

(2) I already explained the connection between Galton and contemporary discussions that involve race. Why you'd choose to simply overlook my explanation and instead impute beliefs to me is, frankly, beyond me.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
(1) If you contend that most intelligence researchers agree that tests are culturally biased (only measure culturally valuable information), and thus somehow seriously problematic / invalid, then this is simply false. A fairly recent treatment of the subject can be found in Stuart Ritchie's 2015 book, Intelligence: All That Matters
Click to expand...

I, and the academic world, contend that all IQ tests are economically, culturally, socially and otherwise biased. This is accepted scientific fact. We've spent decades trying to understand and mitigate this.

Your contention is against all modern science.

Stop attaching others' names to your beliefs.

(2) I already explained the connection between Galton and contemporary discussions that involve race. Why you'd choose to simply overlook my explanation and instead impute beliefs to me is, frankly, beyond me.
Click to expand...

No, you basically said, "well, it was about genetics". So what? It wasn't about race.

Is there a third person whose name you'd like to fraudulently attach to your own horribly false beliefs?
 
ecofarm said:
I, and the academic world, contend that all IQ tests are economically, culturally, socially and otherwise biased. This is accepted scientific fact. We've spent decades trying to understand and mitigate this.

Your contention is against all modern science.

Stop attaching others' names to your beliefs.



No, you basically said, "well, it was about genetics". So what? It wasn't about race.

Is there a third person whose name you'd like to fraudulently attach to your own horribly false beliefs?
Click to expand...

(1) This is just demonstrably false and bears absolutely no resemblance to what intelligence researchers believe, especially if you think that alleged "biases" are taken to impinge the validity of tests. Once again, you're welcome to advice Ritchie's book, or, for that matter, really any book that wasn't written by Stephen Gould. Your demand that I "stop attaching others' names to my beliefs" is downright bizarre. I recommended a fairly recently published book by an intelligence researcher that includes a treatment of the issue at hand. How on earth is that illegitimate?

(2) I never claimed that the original study was about race. The conclusions of the study, however, call into question the importance of environment. The contemporary debate, that does involve race, deals with the etiology of differences in IQ between racial groups, specifically, the roles of genetics vs environmental factors. I do not see how I can be any clearer on this.

And in at least one account of Galton's study, the one provided by David Moore, Galton is said to have committed a serious methodological blunder and that this was a result of his biases that made him overlook environmental factors and favor biological ones. What do you reckon can explain such an alleged bias? The implication is clearly that Galton held some rather nasty beliefs.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
(1) This is just demonstrably false and bears absolutely no resemblance to what intelligence researchers believe, especially if you think that alleged "biases" are taken to impinge the validity of tests. Once again, you're welcome to advice Ritchie's book, or, for that matter, really any book that wasn't written by Stephen Gould. Your demand that I "stop attaching others' names to my beliefs" is downright bizarre. I recommended a fairly recently published book by an intelligence researcher that includes a treatment of the issue at hand. How on earth is that illegitimate?

(2) I never claimed that the original study was about race. The conclusions of the study, however, call into question the importance of environment. The contemporary debate, that does involve race, deals with the etiology of differences in IQ between racial groups, specifically, the roles of genetics vs environmental factors. I do not see how I can be any clearer on this.

And in at least one account of Galton's study, the one provided by David Moore, Galton is said to have committed a serious methodological blunder and that this was a result of his biases that made him overlook environmental factors and favor biological ones. What do you reckon can explain such an alleged bias? The implication is clearly that Galton held some rather nasty beliefs.
Click to expand...

Neither of those people claim there are racial differences in IQ. Stop attaching their names to the claim.

Cite your evidence of such.

Wicked_SFG said:
It's a generally accepted fact that different groups have different average IQ scores. The main question is how to go about accounting for such differences, and whether it can be plausibly argued that genetic factors aren't only extant, but also important.
Click to expand...

Not ancient dude who never said that. Not some book by a postdoc in Edinburgh, which doesn't say that. Cite something.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Neither of those people claim there are racial differences in IQ.

Cite your evidence of such.
Click to expand...

Do note that I recommended Ritchie's book for its treatment of the question of racial bias in tests. Whether he believes that there exist racial differences in IQ is irrelevant. The relevant point is that he clearly believes that tests aren't culturally biased in any serious way. That's, in fact, one of the myths that he sets out to dispel. His view, to the best of my knowledge, is far from being a fringe view among intelligence researchers. If you want another prominent researcher who clearly rejects the view that tests are biased, then you can also check out Richard Haier's book, The Neuroscience of Intelligence.

As for Gould, of course he didn't believe that. Gould's goal was to basically expose and demolish intelligence testing. His famous book on the subject, The Mismeasure of Man, though extremely popular, has received negative reviews in scientific journals. Which is why I suggested that you read any book, provided that the author is not Stephen Gould.

As for the mere existence of difference in IQ between groups, this is a fact, and just not seriously contested by anyone. The debate is about the causes, and whether it's purely environmental or not, not about whether they exist. Look up works by folks like Richard Nisbett. They're clearly aware of the fact that differences exist. They just promote the view that they're environmental in origin. I know of no one who says that the very existence of differences is a myth.
 
Wicked_SFG said:
Do note that I recommended Ritchie's book for its treatment of the question of racial bias in tests. Whether he believes that there exist racial differences in IQ is irrelevant. The relevant point is that he clearly believes that tests aren't culturally biased in any serious way. That's, in fact, one of the myths that he sets out to dispel. His view, to the best of my knowledge, is far from being a fringe view among intelligence researchers. If you want another prominent researcher who clearly rejects the view that tests are biased, then you can also check out Richard Haier's book, The Neuroscience of Intelligence.

As for Gould, of course he didn't believe that. Gould's goal was to basically expose and demolish intelligence testing. His famous book on the subject, The Mismeasure of Man, though extremely popular, has received negative reviews in scientific journals. Which is why I suggested that you read any book, provided that the author is not Stephen Gould.

As for the mere existence of difference in IQ between groups, this is a fact, and just not seriously contested by anyone. The debate is about the causes, and whether it's purely environmental or not, not about whether they exist. Look up works by folks like Richard Nisbett. They're clearly aware of the fact that differences exist. They just promote the view that they're environmental in origin. I know of no one who says that the very existence of differences is a myth.
Click to expand...

Oh, please, do spare me the blather. Just cite something. Something we can read here. Something that supports your grossly ignorant claims.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh, please, do spare me the blather. Just cite something. Something we can read here. Something that supports your grossly ignorant claims.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, do you want me to cite? If we're talking about cultural bias in tests, then I've given you the names of two books where intelligence researchers explain why tests aren't biased.

If we're talking about the mere existence of differences between groups, then this is just not seriously contested by anyone active in relevant fields. I don't know what I can possibly cite here. The debate is about the causes of the differences, with people like Nisbett (environmentalists) who maintain that the cause is environmental and people like Jensen (hereditarians) who maintain that genetic factors play an important role. No one that I know of disputes that the explanandum is race differences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom