A Question on HBD

By Daniel Miessler on February 23rd, 2010: Tagged as HBD

bigchick

So there’s a common argument against the HBD stance that different groups have (or can have) differences in IQ that goes like so:

It’s pointless to discuss differences in IQ across groups if the differences between IQs in-group are larger than those across groups.

That has always been a strong argument for me, but I just thought of a possible counter.

Women are widely accepted to be less physically strong than men, and this is a difference that has real-world implications. But this is true despite the fact that the span in strength between a strong woman and a weak woman is no-doubt greater than that between an average man and an average woman.

What’s the anti-HBD response to this?

  • cooperati

    Please explain HBD.

  • CarlM

    I would argue that if you're judging someone's strength (say as a job requirement), then judge their strength. Don't PREjudge them because they are a man or a woman. Whether or not there is a difference between men and woman as groups is IRRELEVANT, so isn't worth discussing. That pretty well captures my position on the issue.

  • CarlM

    It's kinda like BHO. (Don't ask me why people feel the need to use initials for things.)

  • richardcorsale

    Please explain BHO.

  • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Here's an explanation from someone who talks about the subject often:

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/06/hbd-human-biod…

    But basically it's Human Bio-Diversity, meaning that some groups have inherent advantages in some things vs. other groups, where group can be anything from sex to race.

  • CarlM

    I was being a smart alec. BHO was thrown around by some during the most recent US presidential campaign (almost exclusively by those on the right and mostly by those who used it as code for “Don't forget the H, he is a secret Muslim you know!”). I don't like things that impede communication. I think that the use of initials or acronyms is inappropriate unless everyone in the intended audience is VERY likely to understand the reference.

  • CarlM

    Genetic Maleness/Femaleness is fairly unambiguous. XX = Female, XY = Male. There are mutants who have extra chromosomes, and there are cases in which people do not feel psychologically connected to their genetic gender, but in general XX leads to a certain path of physical development and XY leads to another. These differing developmental pathways lead (on average) to different physical strengths, but (as I said before) this is irrelevant when looking at individuals. It is a mistake to allow group averages to influence one's appraisal of an individual AT ALL.

    The split of humans into Male/Female is unambiguous. We can pretend that there is an equally unambiguous split of humans into races, but this is merely pretending. ALL women have a common developmental pathway. ALL men have a different developmental pathway. It is NOT the case that all people labeled as being members of a certain race have anything like the same sort of broad-reaching developmental history in common with each other. This fact alone carves a monumental hole in the argument that these folks put forward.

    More importantly, I think that the fact that people use perceived group differences to prejudge individuals is simply WRONG (and I think that too often people use bad science / pseudoscience to justify their prejudices).

  • richardcorsale

    oh I get it … I need to move away from here… :)

  • CarlM

    I was being a smart alec. BHO was thrown around by some during the most recent US presidential campaign (almost exclusively by those on the right and mostly by those who used it as code for “Don't forget the H, he is a secret Muslim you know!”). I don't like things that impede communication. I think that the use of initials or acronyms is inappropriate unless everyone in the intended audience is VERY likely to understand the reference.

  • CarlM

    Genetic Maleness/Femaleness is fairly unambiguous. XX = Female, XY = Male. There are mutants who have extra chromosomes, and there are cases in which people do not feel psychologically connected to their genetic gender, but in general XX leads to a certain path of physical development and XY leads to another. These differing developmental pathways lead (on average) to different physical strengths, but (as I said before) this is irrelevant when looking at individuals. It is a mistake to allow group averages to influence one's appraisal of an individual AT ALL.

    The split of humans into Male/Female is unambiguous. We can pretend that there is an equally unambiguous split of humans into races, but this is merely pretending. ALL women have a common developmental pathway. ALL men have a different developmental pathway. It is NOT the case that all people labeled as being members of a certain race have anything like the same sort of broad-reaching developmental history in common with each other. This fact alone carves a monumental hole in the argument that these folks put forward.

    More importantly, I think that the fact that people use perceived group differences to prejudge individuals is simply WRONG (and I think that too often people use bad science / pseudoscience to justify their prejudices).

  • igf1

    oh I get it … I need to move away from here… :)


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs