[hackinthebochs]

>Dunno why i can't reply to your reply

There's a timeout between when the comment is first posted and when the reply button is visible.

>Others have tried to debunk this for me saying only the best emigrate to the US.

It's not about the US specifically, but about some avenues for immigration costing significant money, time, educational attainment, etc. I don't know much about the UK immigration system, but probably Black immigrants to the UK are similarly selected to be higher IQ than average. It's not like they can just walk across the border.

>Caribbean immigrant families have worse outcomes than Nigerian immigrant families.

You can't just naively compare two very different political situations and social contexts and expect them to be equal on all relevant traits. What political systems in place may make it easier for a Caribbean family to immigrate to the UK compared to Nigerians? Who knows, but these are relevant facts that you can't just assume are identical or irrelevant. These things need to be studied carefully if they are to be taken as conclusive evidence.

[helboi4]

I agree there's more to be examined if we want a good picture. There's still no proven correlation between race and intelligence here. And that is all I'm arguing. Saying "blacks are stupider than whites" is a statement that is lazy to the point of being racist. It is definitely not "accurate and mild".

[hackinthebochs]

> There's still no proven correlation between race and intelligence here.

If you take race as just a grouping trait for a collection of individuals, then this is just plainly false. Black/White as a grouping trait does in fact correlate with measured average IQ differences. This result is not in doubt. If you're taking race as some abstract ideal then there is no evidence that the abstract concept of race correlates with IQ scores. But this just changes the subject.

>Saying "blacks are stupider than whites" is a statement that is lazy to the point of being racist. It is definitely not "accurate and mild".

If the argument is that he didn't take sufficient care and sensitivity to an issue he knew or should have known is highly inflammatory, then you should just say that. But this just sounds like a vibe check to me. Which is fair, but at least be honest about it.

[cauch]

This is what is called a spurious correlation, and it is wildly considered as a scientific mistake to call it simply "a correlation", because either the person that talks about correlation has made a mistake by not checking if it's spurious or not, or the person that talks about correlation is intellectually dishonest.

It's like saying that black skin and lion attacks are correlated: while it is true that the correlation coefficient shows a number that correspond to a correlation, proper scientists don't do that, because it is not the skin color that is intrinsically correlated with the lion attacks, but the fact that lions and victims are both present in some specific regions. It is just bad science, or even pseudo-science, to call it "correlated", because you have done half the work and stop before the end. It's a bit like providing a result without the uncertainty bands when those uncertainty bands indicate we haven't reached statistical significance: it's bad science and it is not accepted for publication.

I guess you know it, but just in case: the stupid graph where you see a growing line between skin color and IQ is because the samples are not corrected for socio-economical status, which is itself clearly correlated with IQ. It's like taking blue-eyed people who are poor and stop their education early and brown-eyed people who have been to uni and then looking at the IQ.

Additionally, the stupid naive line is not the only method to check if it is genetic. You can also compare IQ score of twins separated at birth or look at the genome of the cluster that you pretend is "genetically less intelligent" and see if in this cluster there is less variance than in any other groups. In both case, the conclusion is that the IQ score appears to not be correlated to a specific genome. So via this approach, the conclusion is that "we cannot conclude it is correlated" because there is no mechanism to explain it and it can be spurious or a fluctuation.

[helboi4]

Thank you for talking sense very well. It very suspicious and disingenous that people seem to want to double down on the loose idea that there may be causation here when it would be ridiculous to do so in any other scientific context. It's blatantly racism and/or, as you said, simply falling for some very inaccurate and dangerous rhetoric by people with a racist agenda.