but the correlation is an indication of their culture not their inherent inability. we have seen indigenous Americans get same levels of IQ just in 1 generations as Europeans when they lived together in the same society and there was education schooling and modern institutions. And the differences even out in big enough populations they become meaningless. It just shows that the human brain is just like a sponge waiting to be programmed , and it's very important how you program it since birth upbringing from family society culture and schooling
Know he didn't. He said the New York times articles were bullshit about black families. What don't you understand about that. The media run with a narrative that's not true and ppl like you eat it up cause it helps you sleep at night.
There is an accepted correlation between race and IQ. The debate is whether it’s from environment, genetics, or a mixture (and how much of each one comprises the mixtures proportions)
I have seen - in person - black mothers beat their children - including infants -- on their heads and abdomen. Everyone in my area knows that BP beat their kids FOOD FOR THOUGHT
It’s funny that Noam Chomsky tries to say that differences in intelligence between groups doesn’t exist… But his intelligence is clearly way higher than the lady that is asking the question. Irony? Lol
@@charlesg7926 there are explainations for that if you bother to look, its not as easy as genetic makeup, but it has alot to do with social context/construct, up bringing, background ..etc, but possibly its easier for you to think otherwise.
@@charlesg7926 English clearly isn't her first language, imbecile. How many languages do YOU speak? And there's nothing wrong with her question anyway. Numerous universities have conducted tests with the unanimous conclusion that I.Q. levels aren't inherent to race. The very notion of anything else is absurd. Yours is the sort of pathetic transparency that Chomsky references.
Arch5tanton Welfare is not a safety net, it’s a facade. Black families have been destroyed by private prisons, segregation, open discrimination, and income inequality. Welfare is a side note.
get the line straight. peace. “This has nothing to do with evil and god, this has to do with the rich powerful people, trying to justify the fact that they are pursuing social policies which are forcing children to die. That is what it has to do with.¨
Because IQ is a subjective term. It's like trying to determine which race tastes chocolate the best. The answer only serves a subjective point of view.
@@joegallegos9109 : IQ isn't subjective there are clear tests. Just as there are clear tests for long distance running. IQ only tests a few areas so clearly not everything. Just like testing 10,000 meter running speed doesn't test for all running.
Don't know. But I doubt that any ONE "race" or nationality, would score supreme on intelligence, because it seems to me, that all human societies need it. (Unless you want your society to turn out like the movie Idiocracy. 😏) I have heard something about high IQ scores among Ashkenazi Jews though. Probably because some studies have been done there. Claims have also been made about Asians' mathematical ability and so on.
People needs to remember that the same arguments made against blacks , Latinos and Arabs , used to be made against Asians , then slowly retracted as several Asian nations economy developed . Starting with Japan ofc , then south Korea ... and they always get revised once the economy is developed enough , but of course as Chomsky mentioned ( and Ha joon chang in his brilliant book Bad Samaritans ) It's a useful tool so you don't consider the social , economical and policy background , as more often than not they are inconvenient to the guy spewing that bullshit
+oneloveonebeing Were talking about Asians they live near/in China i have no idea why you bring up USA specific things not to mention most of those laws were just meant to keep people separated. If people want to discriminate on who they sell houses to it's their choice. It's a known fact that selling to blacks instantly lowers the market value of that house/neighborhood you can scream racism all you want doesn't change the facts.
@@user-du9zt5rp5x certainly. All the data is in race and iq by Edward dutton. The bell curve by Charles Murray is another handy reference. You're welcome
@@madforit2 iq tests have to do with the education and wealth. do you really think that someone from africa can't score as much as a white does if they both have the same education level and similar life style?
@@user-du9zt5rp5x Heritability of intelligence is 0.8. You could take person A who was born to high iq parents but raised by low iq parents and in a poor environment with average education and do the opposite for person B and person A will still have a higher IQ
@@madforit2 okay but is this a racial trait? Generations become smarter as their life quality improve. African-americans in the US have higher iq than the Africans that live where the african americans were brought from, why? It's not because they changed their race. It's because their life quality improved. So when you say race and iq have a correlation, it means that some races are inherently smarter than the others but it's not true.
The military itself made it illegal really. The effort to have someone do any good work is above that level is difficult. They don't want people hurting themselves or others in addition. They put the rule so a recruiters and others would not just get anyone to make the quota numbers.
He didn't answer her "real" question. She was asking "truth"about "unfairness" of the world. I don't have IQ 120 which represent 15 % of population. So I realise all I can do is make effort to build my own intellectual capacity to live with dignity. That's all I can do.
Hey, I totally agree. Thankfully, in America you don’t need to be smart to make money. Every Tom, Dick and Harry out there is making money off of the capitalist, consumer driven economy. By hook or by crook. The only (tiny) requirement is to not be lazy. And yes, we can all get by in life, quietly and with dignity, without ruffling too many feathers. In the end we will disappear into infinite nothingness and no-one will give a damn what we did with our lives and how we lived. And we can’t take any of our money with us, wherever the heck it is that we’re going.
I think you should read more about IQ and why it is an almost entirely useless measure of any sort of human utility. Otherwise I understand your sentiment and think it is a good one.
@@MrHitomiplum Thank you for comment. I know haven't read enough books to say Whether IQ is a good measurement for wellbeing of living life. Especially in terms of "value" of life. However, Richard Haire said correlations of success of life(meaning business), marriage life and even longevity with IQ score is very strong. Ricard is respectful scientist and I would never think he talks gibberish. Point is life is "actually" unfair and many people suffer from it. If he finds way of improving IQ it would be revolutionary. Until then we need to acknowledge its unfairness and keep Hopes...
@@qttelescope8363 I'll look into Richard Haire and perhaps read some of his work (I have a lot on my plate at the moment!), but it is interesting that he believes success in life intrinsically means success in business. There are reasons why IQ would correlate with business success and they do not necessarily have to do with intelligence, but instead other factors that would lead one to *believe* that business success is how they should measure their self-worth. If you understand this, you may see why IQ correlation with an outcome does not mean IQ causation with that outcome. Otherwise I do agree that life is unfair, and I personally believe that suffering is never deserved. Attempts at improving the lives of those who are suffering should rightfully be celebrated, but be aware of what the people making these attempts classify as improvement. It will help you understand them, and also understand yourself. All the best to you.
Bad jeans is definitely not a hard problem to solve. There are cheap ones out there that still look decent. If some people really can't afford them, then of course we need to provide them some financial support, but that would be a really minor public investment that I think even Republicans could agree to.
I wonder what Chomsky makes of the fact that Ashkenazi Jews represent 29% of US Nobel prize winners. Considering they only make up 2% of the US population that's quite impressive!
@@NanakiRowan it's certainly your opinion. Using jargon doesn't mean you're actually making any arguments. He didn't respond to any claims with any counter arguments. He just said, in short, "it's wrong." I take it you don't know what a dialectic is or analytics; I take it you also don't read much. This is how people like him get people like you to believe absolutely anything by saying absolutely anything, or nothing at all.
@@jimmyjimmy7240 Again, Chomsky's 3 minute and 22 second argument against race and IQ is not my opinion. It is an objective fact. You're basically saying that the video you're currently commenting on, doesn't exist lol
The reason that discussing race differences is offensive is that everyone knows the answer already. I hear a lot of people saying how Africans make great runners but nobody wants to take it any further.
Adjust the overall score of each member of each race after accounting for factors external to the test environment like home environment, parental care, teacher to student ratio, nutrition, family income levels and pollution levels of the living environment of respective test takers then I might take you seriously about the genetic factors influencing the IQ of particular a "race" of human beings. Until then, it's subjective ideological garbage.
@@technatezin Pretty sure environment only deducts an average of a couple of iq points. For the most part iq is genetic. I will not talk about race and IQ necessarily but for a bio paper I wrote a paper on this specific problem and sourced several case studies of separated twins. It was almost always dead even or with the millionaire kid getting like 3 points higher which while significant cannot go to address the 15 iq point disparity. With basic puzzles in early education even you are still at like 12 points lower, and tbh I cant give you this because only like a quarter of whites put their kids in early education. Well I guess I am guessing on this point since I am from a low income area, but it cannot be that many.
@@technatezin You are funny for thinking that hereditarians don't take these things to accoount, though obviously they don't if it turns out that there's no disparity in these effects or that they don't really effect IQ in the first place, like how does your parents' wallet effect your cognitive function? Putting race in quote marks makes you look like a midwit. Equality is ideological and a matter of faith til i see evidence beyond your emotions.
What I don't understand is, why wouldn't there be different intellects among races? We have different brain sizes, different physicalities, and different evolutionary histories. We each have different susceptibility to types of diseases, different cultures, different religions, different family structures...why wouldn't this manifest in genetic differences? For example, Australian aborigines lived a relatively nomadic life free from large predators, and as a result, had very little technological development by the time the colonialists came. Does Chomsky think that if you raised an aboriginal Australian in Japan with a Japanese family from birth, or in an Ashkenazi Jewish family from birth, that the child would align itself with the higher income brackets and IQ scores exhibited by these groups? What if you did this for 5 generations? The reason the discussion is important is because we have social policies around racial differences in employment, education, income, that we try to explain away through evidencing historical injustices laid upon those groups. These policies, like educational grants, affirmative action and so on, are aimed at closing the gap between races. But in order to do so, shouldn't we try to grasp the fullness of the problem to the best of our ability? What if a large portion of the gap is genetic? That's not to say that there aren't cultural issues at play lowering the IQ scores of certain groups; like a breakdown of the African American family, high homicide rates, poor diet, low emphasis on education and so on. These are all factors which society should aim to improve. But why then is central America and Africa so underdeveloped and dangerous when compared to Japan, or Western countries & continents like the US and Europe?
"why wouldn't there be different intellects among races?" define "race". or fuck, let's just jump to the proper conclusion, shall we? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE. www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/10/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford/
@@thomasneal9291 Race is defined as a group related by common descent or heredity. Often, these groups also share similar phenotypic traits. For example, not only are Aboriginal Australians and European Australians easily distinguished from one another physically, but they also have different susceptibilities to addiction, different lifespans, eye colour, average heights, weights, income etc. If there is no such thing as race, why do African Americans dominate basketball? Surely all races would be equally adept at the game if they're all interchangeable?
intelligence is a complex trait influenced by hundreds or thousands of genes and regulatory loci. While it is easy for populations to quickly acquire differences that only involve a small number of genetic markers, such as pigmentation or hair texture, it would take a much greater evolutionary pressure to exert an influence on traits as complex and environmentally malleable as intelligence. The genetic variation within human populations is much greater than variation between populations. This does not mean that most variation in intelligence is within rather than between populations. However, it does make such a reality seem very possible. It also indicates that selection pressures have not resulted in a remarkable winnowing of the gene pool that we inherited from our shared ancestral base. Evolutionary psychology is a fascinating, yet absurdly speculative field. There are thousands of potential ways that different environmental factors might impact populations on a psychological level. Anthropological studies have revealed astonishingly divergent cultural norms arising from small, genetically indistinguishable tribal groups in the same environment. As for my own speculation, I would argue that cultural selection for psychological traits is a greater determinant of reproductive fitness than any direct environmental factor. The highly tribal and therefore highly diverse nature of most of human cultural history largely precludes the development of large homogenous cultural trends across regions selecting for lower or higher intelligence. I would also argue that intelligence is universally valuable in helping one's potential for social selection. Whether it is hunting, fighting, story-telling, making music, toolmaking, leading, or manipulating people's opinions, intelligent people have an advantage over their peers in any skill that might making them socially desirable and therefore more reproductively fit in their community.
@Sunbro It's no perfect, I agree, but it's something. It can give us what we need in order to develop proper tests and not just 1 that only measures 1 thing: cognitive intelligence (the most popular and known form of intelligence)
%100 true, but he explains why. He tells us explicitly that, in his opinion, the argument connecting race and IQ lacks merit and is not worthy of being taken seriously.
Subsidize a "lie as a truth"? Wow, the only weakling I see here, is a piece of right wing shit like you. Mortality is a lesser evil than a greater evil like nonsensical lies spewed as truths.
The truth is not that they are good at sports, but with a low intelligence that’s what is left for them to do, a tall white man with great genes and physical abilities is more likely to be a doctor than a player.
The topic says this topic was on "race and IQ" but the reality is this was "the New York Times brings up fallacies about why IQ differs between races"; and in complete fairness to Chomsky *the question was about the NYT article not about the subject of race and IQ* so he answered the question. The problem here is the "subediting" (the creation of titles and subheadings that bear too little relevance to the given topic).
The correlation between SAT scores and IQ is to be expected, considering both variables are correlated with a student’s inherited wealth and his parents’ education level. It’s preposterous to assume Chomsky is either unaware of these facts or that he is trying to evade them. These facts are common knowledge and their implications only reinforce the notion that inherited wealth highly influences success.
So the shift in understanding is that though genes have an undeniable place in most things, traits are still largely perpetuated by environment? Suppression and oppression, stress and anxiety lends itself to lower cognitive function. Healthier environments that promote healthy development tends to lend itself to improved cognitive skills. How was this ever debated?
@@annsheridan12 which isn’t that deep after all. And this term is according to some not a universal truth or objective reality at the end it’s subjective. And also what do you refer with western ? That concept is so recycled and te used to refer to many things many ideas
The reality is that the thoughts and insights of Noam Chomsky are not deep at all, in fact, they are not even superficial. Race and IQ are biological realities and do in fact have real world consequences.
I read Manufacturing Consent when I was in my early 20s and most of it, to me, was either “duh, yeah” or “this is quixotic.” People gravitate to him because he intellectualizes why weaklings still hate the pretty girl from high school for how they made them feel inferior.
I think it's this: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981658,00.html&ved=2ahUKEwjT3ImLxYTrAhUL-qQKHWDODW8QFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw1YHWtA7dTzsEE7jATsw2HK Time Magazine wrote a few more reviews of the Bell Curve, all of them seemingly positive.
@@ricksanchez4045 "Manufacturing Consent" was interesting to me....I suppose "hero" is a stretch. I liked what he was exposing to the public eye. I don't pretend anything.
I would not make it in the NFL. If they were to lower the standards to Let me in both the NFL and you, as a fan would suffer. When we lower the standards in society/business society/business suffer. Everyone knows this, everyone.
@@jamesreilly3679 it's closely related though. there is a reason why some races are more prone to spending hours quietly beavering through books and equations while others are more likely to spend their waking moments playing the knockout game
"I think that in some respects the sociobiologists are on the right track. I think it’s true that a good deal of our personal behavior, social behavior, reactions, and so on are the reflection of genetic programs, and I think that it’s a worthwhile enterprise to discover what these programs are.... But it’s important to be very cautious in making any claims about the role of heredity in human affairs - especially claims that would have social consequences if they were true." -- Noam Chomsky "Things no amount of learning can teach" (1983)
"Everything is environmental", "Ok, some things are genetic, but mostly environmental", "Ok, genetics clearly influence our nature a great deal". Every time.
so his one bit of actual evidence to support his claim was an anecdotal "my family was big, yet they say all Jewish families are small"? Sad. Sad retort. All emotion. I guess he can say the word Nazi and everything else just sort of lands in place. I remember when I once took this guy somewhat seriously. This guy is the worst type of academic- the one who hides in the university and fears the gears of progress.
He tends to be a good example of his own theory on left wing gatekeeping, where the liberal bias is meant to set the boundaries of the discourse. IQ can be effected by race without the specific claims of a specific essay being true - Chomsky's my favourite commie tbh. He's often accurate about media and corporate control, and he's often in lockstep with the usual rhetoric that's limiting to discourse. Simultaneously belonging to philosophy and belonging to a tribe. Perhaps it is genetic…In any case, I miss his brilliance.
What is likelihood that over a period of tens of thousands of years, different human groups have evolved to have measurable average differences in bone structure, musculature, fat distribution, proneness to certain diseases, responsiveness to certain medicines, oral bacteria, dental patterns, limb to torso ration, genital size, skin colour, hair type, height, sweat gland type, ability to digest certain foods, allergy rates and a million other things, yet cognition has somehow remained untouched by the hand of evolution and the brains of all groups are exactly the same to the 10th decimal place? Does that seem likely to you, Noam?
All of the traits you mentioned, vary more within so-called races than between them. There is no environmental pressure that would select for higher intelligence in some human groups over others. All human groups mastered their environments, and thrived in them.
@@NanakiRowan "All of the traits you mentioned, vary more within so-called races than between them." This is irrelevant. Height varies more amongst men than it does between men and women, yet we can still observe a significant average height difference between men and woman. Are you going to tell me there are no genetic reasons for why West Africans dominate sprinting, East Africans the marathon, North Europeans power lifitng etc? "There is no environmental pressure that would select for higher intelligence in some human groups over others." So there were environmental pressures that lead to average group differences in just about any physiological trait you could care to measure (literally millions of measurable differences) but the brain (80% of the genome) somehow remained unaffected? Temperament, preference, memory, abstraction, altruism, creativity, pitch, rhythm etc. all exactly the same to 10 decimal places? Total blank slates from the neck up?
@@Chad-on8jg It's entirely relevant because you are trying to argue for some difference between so-called races using traits that are found at greater variance within so-called races. What you're trying to do is a logical fallacy. There also are not "millions of measurable differences" within the human species. As I said, there is no environmental pressure that would select for higher intelligence in some human groups over others. Thank you for affirming my statement.
@@NanakiRowan The finalists of the 100m are almost invariably eight men of West African descent. The fact that there is greater variance within groups does not nullify the observable and measurable differences between groups. And yes, there are millions of measurable differences between groups. Pretty much any trait you care to measure will reflect average differences across groups. Jaw width, age at onset of puberty, estrogen levels, breast composition, enamel strength, speed of hair growth, diabetes rates, lower back hair, liver function... literally everything. Of course, most of it is inconsequential, so we either don't bother measuring it or place no importance on it when we do measure it. As for no environmental pressure that would give rise to differences in cognition, might not availability of food, length of winter period, climate, presence of predators, presence of prey etc. not lead to differences in cognition like it did with every other species? Indeed, we can observe divergent evolution of personality in just a few generations in rates, dogs and other animals? Only perverse political idealism could lead one to think humans are exempted from the same forces we can observe everywhere else in nature.
@@Chad-on8jg I'm sorry, but sports performance has nothing to do with race, and you are still wrong anyway, as the finalists of the 100m, are all African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans, all of whom are also of European descent. I can't believe that you're trying to claim that Europeans have some sort of "hockey gene" to explain their overperformance in hockey. You're off your rocker, mate. Yes, the fact that there is more genetic variation within groups than between them, is relevant, as it shows that people within groups are more different from each other than they are to people in different groups. I'm sorry, but there are not "millions of measurable differences" between groups. Naming a few is not "a million", and all of the traits you mentioned are still found in greater variation within groups. I'd love for you to explain how a long winter period would select for greater intelligence than a long drought period. Or how living in an area with less predators would select for greater intelligence than living in an area with a high amount of predators. I'd also love for you to explain to me how canine intelligence is the as human intelligence, as you are attempting to compare the two. I think you're very confused about all of this.
Because they didn't have to. Europeans we're much more populated and killed each other more so it was like an arms race. They also traded with arabs and asians who passed on information and inventions with each other. It's like cutting off someone on a standed island coming back 30 years later and wondering why they haven't built an empire.
@@disgustedbrownsfan Exactly, Europeans evolved to have higher IQ through struggle, superior understanding of the world by adventuring to other lands and learning from other people such as the Arab mathematicians.
@@dabtican4953 evolved? 🤣 Do you know how evolution works? European hegemony is a recent phenomenon dating just a few hundred years. Europe, specifically Northern Europe, the supposed "smartest" was behind much of the rest of eurasia for thousands of years since the start of settled society. Might I also remind you the many times in history when complex societies were subjugated by "less" complex societies. So conquest =/= intelligence either. You guys have no understanding of the intertwined systems of economy, society or the results of historical events, just simple ideology supported by vague, post hoc explanations meant to flatter the insecure ego of unaccomplished individuals because the former would be too challenging. How I imagine the conceited ancient Sumerian musing about the acomplishments of their society as evidence of their superiority just for their civilization to fall like all others. Or a hundred years in the future if China regains hegemony over the world economy and some basement dwelling slug posts a comment on the internet claiming this as evidence of his superior genes. Pathetic.
I do rather love Noam Chomsky. But the underlying question is this... suppose there is an uncomfortable truth relating to Race / genetics and IQ, how do we deal with it? Do we ignore it?
That’s not true, we should treat children with the same respect we do adults, and there are racial differences. They’ve even studied cross race adoption and the correlation is the same. It’s not all racism, not even close
@@attic2basement It’s uncomfortable knowing this because people deny it straight up and think you are a horrible person for looking objectively at 100 years of documented research. I still think biology is more complex than the IQ test. It tests one facet of the human mind, pattern recognition. Some ethnicities likely selected more for quick thinking, planning, reflexes, socializing etc. so I think it’s right to say we’re different, but not objectively better or worse. Although IQ is correlated with higher likelihood of success in our present society…
@@asdf1991asdf I can just reply with "yes it has" but that's not going to get anywhere. Would it help if I go away and find the resources I read where they explained how IQ levels are affected by socio-economic factors, education etc. I don't have the time to get these things for you, you can look them up yourself.
This is what youtube has become. If you search for an honest rebuttal or argument either way on the topic, you get Noam Chomsky , a non-scientist, saying it's impossible because there might have been some racist policies in Harlem at one point in time....
Traian Coza Thanks buddy! I just looked it up. :p There are two general types of data. Quantitative data is information about quantities; that is, information that can be measured and written down with numbers. Some examples of quantitative data are your height, your shoe size, and the length of your fingernails. Speaking of which, it might be time to call Guinness. You've got to be close to breaking the record. Qualitative data is information about qualities; information that can't actually be measured. Some examples of qualitative data are the softness of your skin, the grace with which you run, and the color of your eyes. However, try telling Photoshop you can't measure color with numbers.
Is there a correlation between IQ and people who like green pyjamas? Probably. Small correlations occur between psychological variables all the time, they rarely say anything interesting. The more important question is this: is there a correlation between IQ and Intelligence, eg. as measured by education and employment success? The answer??? Hold on to your horses everyone!!! Anything from as low as r=.2 to only as high as r=.4. In other words, IQ is only a moderate measure of the thing it seeks to measure - intelligence. This is not surprising as intelligence is a broad and complex human capacity determined by many biological and social factors. As for race? Well, race is also a complex idea. Any smart biologist will tell you that it is hard to give a clear definition of race. Genetic variation, for example, does NOT generally correlate too well with phenotypes (physical features such as skin and hair colour). When comes to psychology, simple questions can lead to complex answers or sometimes the realisation that the questions were just plain wrong in the first place.
A correlation of r=.35 is a weak to moderate correlation (about 13 percent of the variance). I'm not sure of "average temperature at origin" means but I assume your saying that people who come from countries where the weather is warmer have a lower IQ? If this is the case then there are many, many questions about how scientists divided people into warmer and colder areas of the world and at what date in history they stipulated the "origin" of the race.
genius is not born, it is made. The secret is repetition, repetition, ... Which means that parents really count. But that doesn't mean that a teacher can't overcome deficits. I did just that in 7th grade algebra in New Mexico. My students responded very well, and nailed the state test. We went over 30 problems on the board every day. I had a different student up front with me for one problem, rotated, everyone else took notes. I had students tell me that they used to hate math, but now it was their favorite subject. I am a retired engineer from UC Berkeley. My students were mosly Hispanic. I had 120 students. Almost every student did very well.
@@DRtwinkies quite true. in a true meritocracy, hard work and intellect are duly rewarded while unproductive behaviour is culled, resulting in a 1st world civilisation.
@@FrangoTraidor Hello again. In the words of the pioneer of IQ testing, ""Some recent philosophers seem to have given their moral approval to these deplorable verdicts that affirm that the intelligence of an individual is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be augmented. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we will try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing." - Alfred Binet, Les idées modernes sur les enfants, 1909
I'm gay and I believe it's genetic. You can't see it by looking....like you can see skin color. And similarly, you can't see IQ, but it doesn't mean it's not genetic. This person is saying that if we can't see it or know what genes are responsible, then it's totally environmental. And there are plenty of black mothers in the USA who commonly use the MF word while raising their toddlers.
Noem needs to stick to linguistics. Thomas Sowell writes at length regarding intellectuals tendency to believe themselves to be experts in more than their primary discipline.
What he did here was to point out that the reasoning of different races having different IQ led to policies which results in the misery and suffering of Black and Hispanics. In that regards he is not wrong.
"Logic? I understand where you're coming from, but what we're really talking to is imperical, demonstrable, repeatable, observations...like performance on the same intelligence (I.Q.) tests given to different races at the same time and place. Not saying infallible, they just eliminated as many variables as possible when the test was given.
Nobody - absolutely nobody - can disprove the irrefutable fact that throughout all of history somebody has always had more goats than others and always will. Period.
It’s not about blaming. Blame is an emotional response. The intellectual capacity between different groups is a scientific and psychological fact, proven through studies, testing and research. Emotions have nothing to do with it
I unironically believe this. Worth noting, being wired for survival is not the same as "smarts"- I've worked with plenty of smart programmers from temperate regions. But growing up in the cold gives you a sense of when to leave bad situations very quickly.
It is a shame that Dr. Chomsky chose to attack the article writers' and publisher's motives rather than rebut the article's assertions. The claim that black women do not nurture their children sounds very suspect, but it should be addressed by evidence, not accusations of racism.
"It is, incidentally, surprising to me that so many commentators should find it disturbing that IQ might be heritable, perhaps largely so. An advertisement in the Harvard Crimson signed by many faculty members, refers to the 'disturbing conclusion that intelligence is largely genetic....' Why this should seem disturbing remains obscure. Would it also be disturbing to discover that relative height, or musical talent, or rank in running the 100 yard dash, is in part genetically determined?" --Noam Chomsky "IQ Tests: Building Blocks for a New Class System" (1971).
this is taken out of context u nazi fukkker Jewish 'pilpul': "even if intelligence is genetic, it doesn't matter in policy making or morality" Utilitarian Universalists really have an odd habit of trying to insert themselves into ideologies they don't like. "I'm not a christian, but doesn't the bible say X?" "I'm not a racist, but if racism were correct, whites are still dumb??!!"
Bellantoni oh snap... LMAO Of course, theories are fluctuating fields of probability and any good scientist will change with the evidence rather than holding on to some thought they entertained in the past. Being liberal is defined as being able to let go of past beliefs and change. The ability to change is evidence for intelligence. Stephen Hawkings
He's likely far too aware to make the assumption that biological determination and configuration of the brain and central nervous system is the only factor responsible for what we inadequately perceive to be 'intelligence'.
+RyanP He has a wonky brain, to call him intelligent is a total misrepresentation of how fucked up his brain is. Like if you tell somebody rainman is an intelligent guy.
you are far too unintelligent for believing they are distributed in a manner uneven enough to create the disparity we see today. There is variation in genetic predisposition towards intelligence between ethnic groups. The variation is not nearly as large as you would like us to believe. Make an argument to assert otherwise. And you better know quantitative genetics. Spouting off someone else's distilled opinion won't get you far with me
Race is definitely real and genetics influences life outcomes. You are not a moral person for believing in falsehoods. Genetic models explain some of the variance and it's understanding does not necessarily lead to political Nazism. It was for decades, the domain of what should and would have been responsible and respectible paleoconservatism (but it was largely sidelined by ethnic activists of Chomsky's clan who formed the core of neoconservatism). Chomsky belongs to an ethnic group that was disliked by the Nazis for racial reasons and that's his motivation for denouncing the findings of racial science. He says look for motivation, well he has his.
Does RU-vid want me to answer this? I’ve met intelligent people of all races. Genetics does play a role in the phenotypes of certain subsets of all organisms, but that’s more complex than skin color.
I think Chomsky is right. The internet is rife with BS on race and IQ. Stupidly, I make comments on these videos stating how IQ is poor measure of intelligence and outline many of unscientific arguments made about race and biology. Truth is, though, most of the people uploading and watching these videos are not interested in the scientific evidence, they are interested in views that fit their own racists views or fears about others who look or act differently to themselves.
boliussa Did you not watch the video? It only goes for 3 minutes. He makes a simple point. He says that there is no point in engaging in debate with those who espouse the pseudoscience of race and IQ as they are pushing an agenda to justify the social injustices in society that they are profiting from. “He” refers to Noam Chomsky in case I’m being too vague for you.😂
+danzig well obviously there is no point engaging in pseudo-science and there is no point in arguing for enforcing social injustices. But if somebody is making a point about race and IQ(in a way that is not pseudo-science), and to say that this is an explanation for e.g. lack of success, and thus it's not whites or jews keeping them down, and they(the failing or violent group), have no basis for making accusations of racism to explain their failures, then that's an important point to make.
Scrolling through the comments and just shaking my head at the right wing deflectors and fragile Republikkkans who can't handle Chomsky's actual truth.
I think it's an article about Richard Herrnstein & Charles Murray's book "The Bell Curve", in which they claim that race determines IQ. It's a racist argument from beginning to end. But you should read it for yourself & see if you can conjure a convincing opinion of the book & its arguments.
@huizhechen3779 nobody claims "race determines IQ". Differences in IQ distribution for different ancestral groups have been found countless times, in studies that have been replicated a lot more than anything regarding climate change or economics.
@@huizhechen3779 "racist" argument? That's the ultimate conclusion you came to? Yes, genetics has a part in determining your maximum intelligence. Yes, different racial groups came about in history and have different maximum intelligences. This isn't rocket science.
@@hortlockthelivingdead4676 It's just that people can easily be fooled. Most just don't have the time to do research. Some basic mass media and modes of reasoning training can go a long way to tune ones bs detector. I think they should be taught in high school. The subject matter is not as intimidating as it sounds. I dropped out of school at the age of fifteen and returned for night courses as an adult many years later. Thirty years later and I still think it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Have a decent day.
@@humefedders5914 “People of Colour” seem to only display black and shades of brown. Meanwhile, Whites display the most diverse colours of all races. Strange isn’t it?
It's not enough to say "it's right out of the Nazis!" or to attribute ulterior motives to people, you MUST contend with the facts. There is no substitute for an argument. This is deeply unpersuasive. And in the context of the Harris-Klein thing, assuming what you care about is the actual content of the discussion, this video contributes exactly nothing.
Steve Miller Round-Earthers won the debate by refusing to take seriously the flat-Earthers. Because the flat-Earthers have no arguments worth taking seriously. They're transparently false.
Although poorly executed and with little time, 1:04 -1:35 is his main rebuttal. And his supporting explanations imply that the idea of "Race and IQ" are social weapons that obscure the concrete truth that socio-economic affect different races significantly more than anything genetic could. He wants people to dismiss this ideas as a distraction and as a "transparent weapon".
Exactly. He's already said all that needs to be said on race and IQ in "The Chomsky Reader" and "For Reasons of State." The question is of no scientific interest since both are "an obscure amalgam of complex properties." The reason the question is pursued has nothing to do with science: there is no reason to believe that any individual "stand[s] at the mean of his race category," and people who assume otherwise are racists. The motive for this kind of "study" is to rationalize racist social policy. Why should we want to do that? In a decent society people's rights and rewards would not depend on their intellect or any other personal attribute. So there is literally no reason to pursue this "debate."
@@FrangoTraidor Well, first you have to ask, are genes the only possible explanation for those differences? Before we look at the effects of colonialism, of course, we have to look at what put Europe in a. position to colonize. Explanations of that issue range from institutional advantages in Europe like property rights (so argues Niall Ferguson, though I'm personally more skeptical of this it is an alternative to your explanation) to geographic/environmental advantages for Europe (so argues Jared Diamond, and though his book isn't perfect, there's a lot to be said for his argument) and hundreds of other explanations in between. You have to rule them out before you assume that the differences are down to genes. Whatever put Europe in the position, being in that position enabled 'The West'/'The Global North' to rapidly increase the speed of European development while dramatically reducing the speed of non-western development (for instance, by deliberately de-industrializing India while stealing textile manufacturing technology to help make Britain the 'workshop of the world').
@@gaulishrealist hey that seems like a great coping method you've developed there: make zero points and claim to be right. What are you right about? doesn't matter, you just made yourself feel better. Enjoy your self induced boost, you're clearly well practiced at it.
Tf is with the Chomsky cult? He talks like an intelligent, educated guy but said absolutely nothing original/exceptional in this video that would warrant attention (imho). Do people just get excited when an educated person agrees with them using nice words?
He attacks America and, to the many disaffected band kids who hated how the football team got all the attention, he intellectualizes the impotence they felt then extrapolates it to a wider society as they age. He validates them. It’s not even spiritual, it’s just people with Cluster B personality disorders coalescing around a narrative.
IQ is raw intelligence. As much as you can improve it to a degree, it will genetically reach a capacity/limit. Just the way an athlete can improve his performance, it’s raw genetic makeup.
Honestly, I don't put much stock in iq in general. It's way more fluid than we are led to believe. The low iq populations are always accompanied by poverty, lack of education, lack of social development, etc. Those things can be improved and when they are, the gaps narrow.
@@carvedtreeful I have no idea what 'civilisational results' means or implies. However what I do know is, the oldest mine in the world is situated in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the oldest steel weapon, was also found in central Africa, which dates back over 2000 years. Also prior to the 18th century, the largest earth work project in human history was in Benin, west Africa. It was a large city surrounded by a wall and deep moat that stretched 14 kilometres (the longest wall in the world at the time besides the Great Wall of China) which protected a city larger than Lisbon. According to the first Portugese visitors, it had large tall houses, set out in a nice order, along with street lights throughout the entire city, and that was in the 1600's. The city of Benin was destroyed by the British in 1878, along with countless other important cities, libraries and palaces in sub-Sahara, during the scramble for Africa. So if you're implying that Africa didnt create impressive civilisations, all I can say is, you need to brush up on your history.
@@carvedtreeful now you've broadened it to "Africa" when we are talking about SUB-SAHARAN Africa. Civili - sation is a very big word. There has been n - o *civil isation* in subsaharan Africa. They have been limited to quite small kingdoms and paltry "empires". And NO-NE have been wealthy by the standards of Asia and Europe. Don't give me the Mansa Musa myth...before you even start.
Neither of them actually delved into the factual claims and the evidence or lack of evidence. They just evoke emotions, bring up the Nazis, and ascribe malicious motivations to the other side. Some of us actually want to learn things. Why can’t he just present an actual argument if he has one?
Because, here in America, the narratives surrounding society, academia, etc are dictated by ✡'s who use an egalitarian agenda to control the emotional masses
@@jameseldridge3445 I don’t agree. Sam Harris is Jewish and willing to tackle the race and IQ debate. I’m just disappointed because I know someone like Chomsky has an encyclopedia of knowledge in his head and he’s not being forthright about the evidence and counter-evidence on this subject.
@@adambrashear are cat breeds a social construct as well? I’ve been looking for the debunk argument, but all I get are screams of racism or nonsense statements like race is a social construct. Did my DNA test just get lucky guessing my race?
I like this channel a lot but it would be good if you published the date, if even just the year, that these videos were recorded. Would NYT publish an article like this today?
@@tienglongmy Do you favor those of Adolphs? like what are you trying to make a point of. Why even dare toe the line that this type of comment makes you look like you guys are judging this guy for being against racisim? I would eat you both with ketchup. God id hate to be women around you 2.
What are the current average IQs & standard deviations for racial groups in the USA? Do you have a source? Last I heard, there are 1.1 standard deviations between blacks and whites.
@@NanakiRowan What is your source? A quick google search reveals other numbers: IQs extracted from PISA scores (2012) give racial average IQs (normalized to 100 for whites) as follows: Whites, 100.0 Asians, 104.5 Blacks, 87.6 Mestizos (“Hispanics”), 92.1
@@NanakiRowan What is your source? A quick Google search resulted in this finding: IQs extracted from TIMSS scores (2011) give racial average IQs (normalized to 100 for whites) as follows: Whites, 100.0 Asians, 104.4 Blacks, 84.1 Mestizos (“Hispanics”), 88.7
Same genes same results, different genes different results Twin studies find that IQ is 80% heritable in individuals who share the same genes: Bouchard Jr, Thomas J., and Matt McGue. _"Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences."_ Journal of neurobiology 54, no. 1 (2003): 4-45. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/neu.10160
@@migarsormrapophis2755 on an individual bases and that is also debatable how much of an impact it has, but it is absolutely not based off of man made racial classifications from the 19th century
@@MESSI-fx1ob "on an individual bases and that is also debatable how much of an impact it has, but it is absolutely not based off of man made racial classifications from the 19th century" first off: *basis, not bases second: "and that is also debatable how much of an impact it has" - no, hardly debatable at all, the impact genes have is about 80% according to the science (see my link to the paper) third: "but it is absolutely not based off of man made racial classifications from the 19th century" - not exactly sure what you mean by 'but it is not based off racial classifications,' what is 'it' in this context? You mean the heritability of IQ? I have some bad news for you about the stability of IQ means across time and between races if so, but I'm not sure that's what you're referring to. Are you referring to the broad heritability of phenotyipc traits? Again, bad news, the majority of gross human physical traits (height, skin color, eye color, hair color, congenital diseases, intelligence, number of fingers, number of teeth, sex, lifespan, etc) are all highly heritable, both individually and within populations. There's a reason why an anthropologist can determine with 99% accuracy where the majority of your ancestors lived during the past 10,000 years, and indeed, why a geneticist can determine with 100% accuracy where the majority of your ancestors lived during the past 10,000 years. I'm not disagreeing with your original comment, by the way, different environments will result in different outcomes, I was merely pointing out that different genes will _also_ result in different outcomes.
@@MESSI-fx1ob even after you edited your comment for the third, you forgot to correct "bases" to "basis" You know you can just reply in a new comment, right? Moreover, I'd like to point out, though it has no implications for the larger discussion, that racial classifications were not made in the 19th century, but many thousands of years ago. The Ancient Egyptians wrote about such things and I believe there may be earlier allusions to human race in Sumerian texts. It hardly matters _when_ races were classified, of course: radioactivity was first discovered and named in 1896, but I think we can both agree the _phenomenon_ existed _before_ it was observed by man. Sir Richard Owen created the first classifications for dinosaur genera in 1842, but you wouldn't say that dinosaurs started existing in 1842, would you? Not that any of that matters, the fact that genes play a role in determining human phenotypes, and that there are such things as population-level phenotypes, and those phenotypes are largely determined by heritable genetic factors, is not in dispute by biologists.
@@MESSI-fx1ob I'm the one who cited a scientific study that supports my points. So far, you've offered nothing but badly spelled assertions. My position is quite in line with academia - at least, biologist academia. I would say that your position is misaligned with our understanding of genetic heritability within populations, but I'm not entirely sure what "on an individual bases and that is also debatable how much of an impact it has" means, so I can't comment. I might turn your baseless accusation of biased personal motivations around on you and suggest that you've already made your conclusions based on your politics, and so you reject any evidence which contradicts your position, a perfectly anti-science way of thinking, but I shall not cast such aspersions upon you. I have no way of knowing your internal motivations from reading only two youtube comments, just as you have no way of knowing mine. I encourage you once more to read Bouchard et al., the link remains above. Whatever your politics may be, IQ remains 80% heritable.
The article they are discussing, aka the entire context for what he says, is not in the info section. So there's not much to be gleaned here because we can't look up the article.
Is that the Murray book? I would like to see a careful refutation of his data, since an assertion can be true even if the person making it has horrible motivations.
There countless refutations of Murray's ideas, including all the specific sections of his book, from the people he got his data from. So people who say they don't see it, either have not looked for it or are being disingenuous, from personal experience it is the latter. Here are a couple of easy to digest articles: www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1997/01/the_bell_curve_flattened.html A few more further links: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=225294 press.princeton.edu/titles/5877.html bolesblogs.com/1998/03/23/a-review-of-the-bell-curve-bad-science-makes-for-bad-conclusions/ bolesblogs.com/1998/03/23/a-review-of-the-bell-curve-bad-science-makes-for-bad-conclusions/ www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html A tip that this is not science and they knew it, is the fact of it not being sand to be peer-reviewed. I discovered that only few people who use this book to defend their positions and beliefs have read it. Out of them, a couple of them after talking for a bit and looking up what experts think about it, came to the conclusion that the arguments presented in the book is bullshit, "do not align with the current science". None of them have reverted their positions and beliefs due to "reasons I can't quite explain".
Each race has its own mental and physical attributes which it has acquired over its long historical development. Therefore race and racial differences are a biological reality, not social constructs. The different cultures that they produce are an expression of the innate nature of that group of people. Racial differences are real. Pretending you don't notice racial differences doesn't make you virtuous, it makes you ignorant of the world around you.
Prove it with sources. Nothing you can find will say cultures are an expression of their "inate nature" lol. Also differing phenotypes does not mean race exists. Differing medical conditions also does not mean race exists
@@vercot7000 Sure, there are sources, do you have sources? All the constant differences between the races are due to environment? You so realize that sub-species are defined by differing phenotype? What is your definition for race? It probably doesn't exist.
@@fayelis You are an ignorant midwit. 1. Intelligence is defined 2. Apply your reasoning to something like a math test; what is math skill? It's not defined! How can we measure math skills? 3. However we define intelligence is completely irrelevant to the fact that IQ has PREDICTIVE power and has been found to be genetically heritable.
@@fallout1953 I never said all the differences between races are due to environmental factors. We know GxE to be true per Burt & Simmons 2015 as an example, so the way you’ve conceptualized “environment vs genetic” is fallacious. Also, no paper will make the claim you make at the end about subspecies with regards to humans. Please cite me one that does
Things like the drug war, war on poverty, job laws against post-incarcerated ensuring repeat offenses - a lot of these things are just euphemisms for anti-minority policies.
Facts don't care about your feelings, Noam. The reality is that there are mean IQ differences between the races. Pointing this out does not automatically lead to claims of racial superiority.
A few things regarding the discussion in this comment section in general: Our brains aren't fully set in stone, especially not at a very early age. The time in the womb as well as the following 21 years outside have a considerable impact on the outcome. It's a combination of genetics and environmental factors that produces the result, with some genes naturally being related to aspects more susceptible to environmental influence than others, depending on stage of life. That means that economic factors play a role in resulting IQs. Also, there are other cerebral traits that may influence success (e.g. ADHD isn't exactly associated with increased success chances in our modern day societies, high IQ or not). Also, just from IQ, it can't be deduced how much ethnic groups differ genetically in that respect: It would first have to be discerned how much the respective gene pools differ. You can't just go, compare the phenotypes to which the respective gene pools were a party in their development and make assumptions about the underlying gene pools: You'd be excluding the environmental factors. It'd be like picking genes responsible for growth and stating that they're the only factor, and that nutrition and gravity have no effect at all. Rich demographics having better average IQ results is also not surprising, no matter how one slices it: People born rich have, on average, access to a more nurturing environment, people born poor that strike it rich are likely, on average, to have mental faculties that may help such an outcome, which would make higher average IQs in that demographic no surprise at all. It only gets really interesting when controlling for mental faculties such as IQ: How do people in different economic demographics do when born with the same configuration? How about people with the same phenotype (for the observed aspects) at specific stages in their life across economic strata? When it comes to policy, however, the influence is quite clear: Access to education, healthcare, the basics of life as well as formative opportunities are quite *self-evident* as to how they *massively* influence how someone turns out and what opportunities they are likely to have in life, and how things turn out when it all comes crashing down (e.g. illness). Saying that policies have no influence on economic success is *absurd* . IQ-wise, there are two things to be taken into account regarding economic success: IQ and the factors that influence it, which includes the environment, and then the overall societal and economic setup that determines what one's chances are to apply that IQ towards economic success.
@Tor Teo Self identified race matches with best fit genetic cluster 99% of the time. Sorry, but race is genetic. Don't just use "actual science" to just mislead people into believing your opinion is informed. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951706/
I'm gay and I believe it's genetic. I also believe being sexually attracted to ONLY HUMANs(a small percentage of males) is also genetic. Just because scientists know so little about the human genome, doesn't mean we should just assume all things human are MOSTLY environmental until we find out otherwise. I think that's a cop out attitude.
Your comment is one giant strawman against the hereditarian view when literally all of them agree that nothing is 100% genetic. What could this mean? It could mean you just want to undermine the part that genetics play, perhaps even eventually deny it completely (again?) and just blame environment, perhaps even some non-existent "oppression" that must explain the race gaps. IQ is about 80% heritable, definitely no less that 50%, so it's not wrong to say that differences in IQ between the races (which has been proven time and time again) is mostly genetic, not PURELY, ok? Learn what 'mostly' means, learn what a 'group average' is, learn to realize that when a person like me says "IQ is highly heritable", it doesn't mean "only genetic", okay? To further comment: Your phenotype is literally a direct expression of your genes, you absolutely can tell from a phenotype. No, the whole point of searching the heritability for something is controlling for possible environmental factors, that's done all the time. Side fun fact: your genes express themselves more as you age, IQ is fully herited at the age of 24, that's why very young kids usually have similar IQs. Probably for the same reason as a kid i was kinda easily offended, but right not i'm more like my dad: good sense of humour and not emotional about what others think think of me. Is that due to genetics or was i thaught to be this way? Again, you are just mad about group averages, yes, not everyone with high IQ is a success, but IN GENERAL, people with higher IQs are successful, and it's probably because intelligence helps in success, just a guess... "Economic factors"? What, your basic needs? The way the means of production are handled? The latter, nope. The former? If you have your basic needs covered i don't see how "economic" could have a big factor on... anything..., your social environment would probably play a bigger role and the role of environment, in the case of intelligence, is already a miniority factor. Again, nobody has ever claimed that something is purely genetic 😂 However, there are plenty of people, like you seem to be, who either flat out deny genetic role or who downplay it into nothingness. Your argument here is basically just correlation, you are calling environment on something that could very well be genetic, maybe rich demographics are rich because of high IQ and not vice versa? High IQ didn't develop by having better food but by surviving under harsh darwinian conditons and selecting for high IQ. We Finns have been very poor historically yet our nation-wide IQ is little above 100. And non-Whites from global south don't rise in IQ to the level of Whites even in the same socio-economic conditons. It would seem that genes play a bigger role than muh economics. No, overstating the importance of policy is absurd. Besides, what policy? Is there a law against non-Whites getting healthcare? And again, can you prove what influences IQ and what does not? Studies have already shown about 80% heritability all else being equal. And these "muh environmental factors" are controlled for all the time, not like people just ignore them.