Notices
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 401 to 472 of 472
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Racial oppression of the whites

  1. #401  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Yet they agree that people were shorter on average only two thousand years ago. Why is one trait effectively immune to change while another one can change dramatically?
    That's simply an environmental effect. At the end of WW2, Americans were the tallest people on the planet. The Mediterranean refugees who came to Australia were nearly all very short. A couple of generations later, Dutch people are the tallest people on the planet. 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of those Australian immigrants are just as tall as the rest of us.

    Good diets have a big impact - as demonstrated by those Americans and the Australian immigrants. A better health system just adds to the mix, as demonstrated by the Dutch.
    Asian people are both shorter on average, and smarter on average than white people. You may be on to something, but it's kind of complicated when it doesn't all arrange itself neatly into a theory.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #402  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Well, few things are not at least somewhat messy. Intelligence is hard to measure and no doubt the result of many complex factors including nutrition, a loving home, intellectual stimulation while growing up and lack of desease. In simple terms it's nature and nuture both for individuals. Range of response, based in nurture is very large--a child with potential for an average (100 say) IQ could end up anywhere from 80 to 100 just based on well he's raises. Range of response for kids with potential to just qualify as geneus (say 140) is even larger--he could end up with 100 in a deprived environment. The small differences between groups turn out to be almost entirely based on quality of nurturing in those groups.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #403  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    To Kojax.Sorry,but probably you switched from one thing to another.In the beginning you
    told that you mean IQ in sense of academic science, and particularly literacy is important.
    Now you are talking about army clashes.First of all I think that doing some reading and
    writing is not a sign of high IQ. As 99% of the people in any country are able to practice it.
    Neither practicing some foreign languages.I guess most of nobles in England,for example,
    probably studied such languages as French,Spanish,German and Dutch.Those languages
    practically belong to the same language group as English.(Perverted Latin language).
    And if you had been tought those languages from childhood by patient teachers it`s not very
    difficult to do it. 99% of people on Earth could practice 2-3 languages if they hear it from
    early childhood.I guess that majority of noble would be hardly able to practice different languages
    such as Russian or Chinese and if they would start it after 18 years old.
    I agree to understand as sign of high IQ ability to at least practice advanced levels of Math,
    Physics,Mechanics or Chemistry.Or similar sciences.Tallent of military comanders at least until
    20-th century didn`t require any academic sciences in such fields.Until 19-th century modern
    science as such was practically non-existent.Most of nobles were just landlors,not military commanders.
    And who told you that all nobles were bright military commanders?There were many more mediocre
    or even stupid military commanders.There was not to much examples when some noble serving in army
    would loose his rank and even nobilty just because he was not very tallented.Many wars in Europe were
    lost because of stupid commanders.And I bet those nobles who spend many time in wars and academic
    sciences had smaller possibility and often desire to have many children.If you claim that majory of modern
    Europens trace their roots to bright noble military commanders it`s too much for me.
    Once again,overwhelming majority of nobles were common landlors and didn`t participate in any wars.
    And those of them who didn`t, had better chances to have many children.To protect your land or aquire a
    new one you need to be profficient in intrigues and conspiracies rather than in any kind of academic sciences.
    I still not follow you point.Are you trying to prove that feudalism was a locomotive of the progress?
    Personally I think that any social systems which are based on utmost importance of inheritance will lead rather to regress than progress.
    Last edited by Stanley514; April 1st, 2012 at 04:00 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #404  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    To Kojax.Sorry,but probably you switched from one thing to another.In the beginning you
    told that you mean IQ in sense of academic science, and particularly literacy is important.
    Now you are talking about army clashes.First of all I think that doing some reading and
    writing is not a sign of high IQ.

    ....

    I agree to understand as sign of high IQ ability to at least practice advanced levels of Math,
    Physics,Mechanics or Chemistry.Or similar sciences.

    The complicated issue is whether tactical expertise and academic IQ draw from the same part of the brain. I'd say they do. Some of the greatest military leaders in history, like Napoleon, were also excellent mathematicians. It helps to have a good grasp of geometry, and some notion of probability.... etc.

    In order to coordinate a large army, you need excellent managerial skills, which also is somewhat academic. There's a lot of tedious, non-violent aspects to it too. The guy with the better supply line might outlast his opponent, or have access to better weapons and more ammunition. His troops will be better fed, and therefore more alert and battle ready.



    Tallent of military comanders at least until
    20-th century didn`t require any academic sciences in such fields.Until 19-th century modern
    science as such was practically non-existent.
    You mean to get the job, or to be good at it? If you're not good at it, then your children won't inherit it after you're gone. (Remember, evolution is all about offspring.)

    Most of nobles were just landlors,not military commanders.
    And who told you that all nobles were bright military commanders?There where much more mediocre
    or even stupid military commanders.There was not to much examples when some noble serving in army
    would loose his rank and even nobilty just because he was not very tallented.Many wars in Europe were
    lost because of stupid commanders.
    Every noble had to maintain his own fighting force. Your claim on your lands was only as strong as your ability to enforce it against the other lords. The King of any country was simply the biggest land holder. He wasn't substantially more powerful than the lords over whom he reigned. He's just the one they would (usually - not always) unite behind. It wasn't like in modern day where you simply had a document entitling you to the land and the police enforced it for you.

    In the case of stupid commanders you have to understand two things:

    1) - IQ regresses toward the average. A brilliant person's children are unlikely to be brilliant like them. They're more likely to be half way between the average and their parent's level. That's why you don't hear much about Einstein's descendants. He had kids. They just weren't like him.

    2) - Those idiot military commanders were selected against. That's how selection works.



    And I bet those nobles who spend many time in wars and academic
    sciences had smaller possibility and often desire to have many children.If you claim that majory of modern
    Europens trace their roots to bright noble military commanders it`s too much for me.
    Once again,overwhelming majority of nobles were common landlors and didn`t participate in any wars.
    And those of them who didn`t had better chances to have many children.To protect your land or acuire a
    new one you need to be profficient in intrigues and conspiracies rather than in any kind of academic sciences.
    I still not follow you point.Are you trying to prove that feudalism was a locomotive of the progress?
    Personally I think that any social systems which are based on utmost importance of inheritance will lead rather to regress than progress.
    Whether he wanted kids or not, he would have needed to have kids. A lord with no offspring is a "lame duck" in terms of his ability to make alliances, because it's understood that those alliances will end with his death.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #405  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Einstien had 3 children, two stuck down by disease, which is most likely environmental effect and the 3rd went on to get a Ph.D (almost all are technically genius) to create some of the best founding works in hydrology and engineering.
    Hans Einstein - Google Scholar


    Nobility and many of the wealthy of the past probably were smarter than the average citizenry, not because of their genes necessarily, but because they had the best food and enriched households growing up.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #406  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    To Kojax: You constanly switch from different (earlier or later) periods of feudalism.
    If you talk about times when nobles of the same country could withdraw land from
    each other by force and king was no more then any other feudal,then this is early
    feudalism.In England it was something before 14-th century.But in those times
    there was too little any academic knowlege involved and it`s role in IQ was minor.Battles of
    those time cannot be compared in complexity to Napoleon wars of 19-th century and
    mathematical abilities he had do not relate here.12-th century wars in England were
    rather clashes of military bands where ferocity often prevailed over strategy.
    If you talk about times when many nobles spoke few foreign languages it was late feudalism.
    In England around 16-17-th centuries.But in those times there was an absolute monarch and
    some nobles had to serve in regular army.I don`t think that attacking you neibour noble would
    remain unpunished from side of central government.Those who serve in regular army usually have
    smaller chances for self-expression because they usally follow somebodies orders.And there always
    been only few really tallented commanders.I do not see historical evidence that nobility was exceptional
    at military commanding.In 14-th century peasant Wat Tyler and his peasant army captured London and other English cities.Nobles prevailed only by cowardly killed him.In 15-th century Joan D`arc,common peasant girl beat mighty English army.In 17-th century Cromwell and his roundheaded without too much trouble beat better equipped King`s and Noble`s army.In 18-th century U.S. colonies beat better equipped English army and gained independence.
    Last edited by Stanley514; April 1st, 2012 at 06:38 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #407  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    To Kojax: You constanly switch from different (earlier or later) periods of feudalism.
    If you talk about times when nobles of the same country could withdraw land from
    each other by force and king was no more then any other feudal,then this is early
    feudalism.In England it was something before 14-th century.But in those times
    there was too little any academic knowlege involved and it`s role in IQ was minor.Battles of
    those time cannot be compared in complexity to Napoleon wars of 19-th century and
    mathematical abilities he had do not relate here.12-th century wars in England were
    rather clashes of military bands where ferocity often prevailed over strategy.
    You're right that I jump around a lot when discussing what values make for a good commander. That's because I don't honestly believe that the necessary traits have ever been different at one point in history as opposed to another. Smart people make good commanders and always have, no matter how far back you look. It just seems beyond ridiculous that anyone would imagine otherwise.

    However I'm not very good on the medieval period itself. Before that period, Roman generals were winning wars against opponents much more ferocious and numerous than themselves by using strategies their less educated opponents wouldn't have thought of. For example: Gaius Suetonius Paulinus defeat of Boudica's army in AD 60, when she brought an army of 70,000 to meet his 10,000. He simply positioned his army in a location with narrow access, and from which they couldn't be flanked, and waited for her men to charge wildly at him.

    Battle of Watling Street - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It might take a lot of doing to get into the tactics employed by Attila the Hun (who was probably more educated than you might think) or Ghengis Khan, or others, but if you review the history of most of the conquerors, you pretty much always find that they were smart tacticians.

    If you talk about times when many nobles spoke few foreign languages it was late feudalism.
    In England around 16-17-th centuries.But in those times there was an absolute monarch and
    some nobles had to serve in regular army.I don`t think that attacking you neibour noble would
    remain unpunished from side of central government.Those who serve in regular army usually have
    smaller chances for self-expression because they usally follow somebodies orders.And there always
    been only few really tallented commanders.I do not see historical evidence that nobility was exceptional
    at military commanding.In 15-th century Joan D`arc,common peasant girl beat mighty English army.In 17-th century Cromwell and his roundheaded without too much trouble beat better equipped King`s and Noble`s army.In 18-th century U.S. colonies beat better equipped English army and gained independence.

    If we're looking at the Renaissance or later, then certainly intelligence was getting selected for then too, and not just in the nobility. The only reason we're discussing the nobility is to establish that life in Europe has historically selected for intelligence, remember? (And particularly academic intelligence.)

    I only mentioned the nobility because there was that long period where nobles were the ones with the greatest access to mates. Certainly if you were a talented armor smith, planner, or stone mason, and got a job working for a powerful feudal lord, your chances for having successful offspring would be helped by that as well. Most peasant women would be willing to do nearly anything to get themselves and their offspring out of being peasants. Even the bastard child of a noble or valued tradesman was better off than a legitimate peasant child.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #408  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Nobility and many of the wealthy of the past probably were smarter than the average citizenry, not because of their genes necessarily, but because they had the best food and enriched households growing up.
    That is very likely, and even very plausible. But it doesn't explain the disparity between Asian people's IQ and white people's IQ.

    Double standards aren't allowed in science. If you want to use a particular explanation to describe why one group is testing higher than another, then it should also be possible to use that same explanation to describe why another group is testing higher than that one group. Either that, or there needs to be a very good reason why two separate explanations are being employed.

    Are you suggesting that Asian people are wealthier and better fed than Western European people?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #409  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Nobility and many of the wealthy of the past probably were smarter than the average citizenry, not because of their genes necessarily, but because they had the best food and enriched households growing up.
    That is very likely, and even very plausible. But it doesn't explain the disparity between Asian people's IQ and white people's IQ.
    Why do you say that? I was raised in town where many people didn't have any book in their homes, nor lots of toys and parents that didnt' make their kids do homework because niether of them got past 6th grade and were eeking out a respectable living off the ocean. My sister and I had a house full of books, telescopes, microscopes--we were poor but my mom fully understood the importance of getting out. Only two my town went to college--I'm' one of them two years after I quite high school. The deprived environments often associated with poverty leads to lower intelligence and account for all but a very narrow range of IQ.

    Are you suggesting that Asian people are wealthier and better fed than Western European people?
    Quite possibly--but other environmental factors we've talked about such as how enriching the home environment was. There's also the matter of self selection, another factor in American studies, such as a large study in Houston discovered:
    "In a thorough study of Houston's Asian American population, Dr. Stephen Klineberg confirmed what sociologists have long known about the advantaged backgrounds of Asian immigrants. "The survey makes it clear that Asians have been relatively successful in Houston primarily due to the educations and middle class backgrounds they brought with them from their countries of origin," Klineberg says. "One of the key messages from the survey is that we have to discard the 'model minority' stereotype that is so often applied to Asians in America. [It overlooks] the fact that a high proportion of Asian immigrants come from an occupational and educational elite." (5) "
    Myth versus Facts: Asian American and Model Minorities

    And getting back to the point of why racism is so misplaced, even if there were a clear and demonstrated difference because those real differences are tiny compared to the range of intelligence in each group. Some studies the total difference between Asians and Caucasians might be as high as 5%. Normal distribution puts a 60 spread in IQ for each group at 95%. That is 95% of white IQ potential might be 70-130, while Asian is 75-135. (it's not really a normal distribution...but close enough to make the point).

    So here's the problems....racism blames people for their environments rather than their potentials, because we know a group in a crappy environment will do far worse as group than the 5% lower--it's closer to 15-20%, which is what we see when we sample inner city communities, the hills of West Virginia and even worse in places like Somalia. The point is instead of blaming those average by race...it should be acknowledged from the get-go, that most of it is environmental--and the appropriate action to make things better if fix that environment instead of casting racial dispersions. (you're not doing this I know). (this is also one of those not mentions side affects when the world lets mass starvation happen somewhere--a generation of mentally retarded adults which makes it much harder to self govern or fix their own problem).

    The racial thinking is really illogical and immoral when it's applied to individuals.
    Any opinion that blames individuals for the environment they were raised is fundamentally anti-modern American.
    Any opinion which presumes a person automatically falls in that lower range just because 55% of his "race" falls below average is also fundamentally anti-American.


    Double standards aren't allowed in science. If you want to use a particular explanation to describe why one group is testing higher than another, then it should also be possible to use that same explanation to describe why another group is testing higher than that one group. Either that, or there needs to be a very good reason why two separate explanations are being employed.
    No one is pulling a double standard here, but many are showing the many factors involve in IQ and academic achievement.

    Sorry for the rant and I'm not pinning it on you Kojax...I think you're exploring the objectivity of this sensitive issue...which is fine. I'm ranting because I think it's far too easy for those so inclined to cherry pick such quest for objectivity for an excuse to be racist and discriminate against individuals.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 1st, 2012 at 10:07 PM. Reason: editing
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #410  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    -------
    Last edited by Stanley514; April 2nd, 2012 at 09:08 AM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #411  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    The only reason we're discussing the nobility is to establish that life in Europe has historically selected for intelligence, remember? (And particularly academic intelligence.)
    I would better understand you if you would give example of some nations which get sluggish in development
    bacause of feudal relations (and there is some).Let`s do not associate idea of feudalism (as contrary to democracy) with Europeans.This is wrong and abusive.Europeans did a lot to dethrone feudalism and establish democracy.There were many heroes.Let`s pay due respect to them.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #412  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    [

    The racial thinking is really illogical and immoral when it's applied to individuals.
    Any opinion that blames individuals for the environment they were raised is fundamentally anti-modern American.
    Any opinion which presumes a person automatically falls in that lower range just because 55% of his "race" falls below average is also fundamentally anti-American.
    All statistical based thinking is wrong when you apply it to individuals. Why limit the scope of that claim to just racism?

    However, outliers will never be properly accommodated until we acknowledge that a statistic exists, against which outliers are likely to frequently emerge. Discarding statistical findings is the wrong road. It forces us to pretend that the outliers are not outliers, but that instead they are consistent with the norm. That doesn't help them.

    Outliers are always going to have a rough life. Dumb kids will get picked on because their peers feel superior. Smart kids will get picked on because their peers feel threatened. It's good to identify them early and give them all the help we can (not BS ourselves that they don't exist.)

    In the case of outlier smart kids, I worry that nurture over nature folks will try to fix the community instead of move the kid. If the cause of the low average IQ in their region is genetic, then there is no fix for it. It's a waste of resources, and the kid's potential.





    Sorry for the rant and I'm not pinning it on you Kojax...I think you're exploring the objectivity of this sensitive issue...which is fine. I'm ranting because I think it's far too easy for those so inclined to cherry pick such quest for objectivity for an excuse to be racist and discriminate against individuals.

    I'm glad you understand what I'm trying to say. I agree that there are too many people who see a number and decide to overestimate its significance. It's like they really believe that if one group has fewer above average individuals than another (especially by a margin as low as 5 or even 15%), that it must have zero individuals above average.

    Maybe the danger of all discussions involving statistics is that a few (hopefully not too many) people won't understand them right. I hate to be expected to tip toe around their ignorance, though. It just doesn't seem right being required to exaggerate the un-importance of a statistic out of fear that someone else will exaggerate in the other direction.
    Last edited by kojax; April 1st, 2012 at 10:54 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #413  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    In the case of outlier smart kids, I worry that nurture over nature folks will try to fix the community instead of move the kid. If the cause of the low average IQ in their region is genetic, then there is no fix for it. It's a waste of resources, and the kid's potential.
    The reason is the range of response of IQ depending on environment. If you give a kid with maximum potential for an 85 IQ the best evironment he likely won't get a graduate degree--but at least you'll get him to supporting himself in a satisfying job instead of the leaving him in a poor environment where he grows up with a 65 IQ, a dissatisfied ward of the state and a net drain on our tax dollars.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #414  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm thinking if a kid has a lower max IQ, then it's important to give them classes that are geared toward their abilities. The best way to ensure the kids in an IQ 85 community don't pick on that single smart kid is to give them classes where it's possible for them to still get an "A" with that 85 IQ of theirs. Then they feel encouraged to apply themselves, rather than ashamed every time they try. If the material is too hard, they'll try and cover up by pretending they simply don't care or the material is "dumb" or "not for them". As long as they're getting "A"'s and feel good about themselves, they won't mind if the smarter kid is getting A's too, and perhaps taking harder coursework.

    But you see, for that to happen, we have to admit something to ourselves right from the start that we don't want to admit.

    As long as the smartest students are getting pulled down by their peers, it's going to look from the outside as though the community were never producing any smart students to begin with. If we want to break down the stereotypes, we have to put those smarter students in a position where they can shine. They carry the reputation of the whole community on their shoulders.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #415  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The problem with demanding increasing effort to be made to exclude every possible confounding factor is it's a never-ending quest. There will always be something that should have been controlled for and wasn't. It thereby excludes your own theory (that no correlation exists) from being falsifiable (until an infinitely great effort has been expended... which will be never).
    The null hypothesis is not excluded by lack of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Admittedly, the economic factors/nurture arguments are important, because if they were exerting an influence the results would move toward the center, but it's almost impossible to screen for them adequately because no reliable theories exist that are capable of quantifying their effect. We don't know how much nurture and/or economic circumstance affects or doesn't affect IQ.
    Therefore we make no claims that would depend on such knowledge - right?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Yet they agree that people were shorter on average only two thousand years ago. Why is one trait effectively immune to change while another one can change dramatically?
    Genetically fixed traits are difficult to change quickly. Sociologically or environmentally established traits are easily altered over very short spans of time.

    Human height turns out to be significantly dependent on multigenerational environmental and sociological factors. Research - by John Komlos and others - seems to indicate that all "races" and other groups of humans other than a couple of actual tribes of pigmies (isolated genetic modifications long established as such) have similar or even identical genetic average heights.

    The current large difference in average height between North and South Koreans is one of the data points we can examine and learn from, for example.

    It's easily possible that even if IQ actually measures something definable (that remains in question), group average differences in IQ equivalent to group average differences in height could be due to multigenerational environmental or sociological factors. An IQ difference equivalent to the height difference between North and South Koreans, say, is easily within the range of environmental effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    explain why Jewish people and Asian people have higher IQ than white people. Is their state of nurture better than that of white people?
    Quite likely, yes. They certainly are nurtured differently, on average - for example: it was once common among white people (aren't Jewish people "white" yet?) to hear of parents discouraging their children from wasting their time reading books and going to school, even getting angry at them for appearing to want to be "better than" their parents. Those children - and their descendents to this day - are part of the "white people" average. I haven't heard of any such common tradition among Asian or Jewish populations in the US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #416  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I'm thinking if a kid has a lower max IQ, then it's important to give them classes that are geared toward their abilities. The best way to ensure the kids in an IQ 85 community don't pick on that single smart kid is to give them classes where it's possible for them to still get an "A" with that 85 IQ of theirs. Then they feel encouraged to apply themselves, rather than ashamed every time they try. If the material is too hard, they'll try and cover up by pretending they simply don't care or the material is "dumb" or "not for them". As long as they're getting "A"'s and feel good about themselves, they won't mind if the smarter kid is getting A's too, and perhaps taking harder coursework.
    Speaking as one whose business for 10 years was remedial education, I couldn't disagree more. What you need is to give children whose previous inappropriate education (or lower IQ, or other learning impediment) is affecting their educational performance is graduated introduction to real, serious work. One startling result for low IQ students comes from the approach outlined in "The Myth of Ability" by John Mighton. I had no intention of organising the delivery of tuition in the way he has developed it, so more than half of my purchase price was unused. But it was still worth every cent. I strongly recommend picking it up cheaply on Amazon or similar 2nd hand shop, even if youre not involved in education. The introduction and first few chapters are fan. tas. tic.

    Giving kids an 'A' for low standard, pointless, unproductive, lackadaisical make-work exercises is not just pointless, it's actually negative. Do you really think that children can't tell the difference between good and bad, useful and pointless? They know very well that the 'A' is meaningless for lower standard or poor quality work. What they want and need is the feeling of quiet satisfaction or shouted triumph that comes from mastering something that has eluded them, maybe for years if you're talking about fractions or decimals that are rarely taught 'properly' in years 4,5,6. You don't change what is taught, you change the way you teach it. Properly taught, absolutely every school student can do arithmetic, geometry and algebra to year 9-10 level. They can also learn spelling, punctuation and grammar - and learn how to support their writing with appropriate use of dictionaries and other references.

    Of course, it's always a good idea to check whether their hearing and vision are working properly first. It's amazing how much more you learn when you can see what you're doing. We got a real shake-up on this with one kid. He'd had known hearing problems for several years and they'd been fixed at last, but the years of 'lost' education were a serious problem. He'd been coming to us for a whole term before we accidentally discovered that he had the same problems with colour contrast perception that several other of our students had. (He picked up another student's sheet that had been copied onto a specific colour background and said, "Oh, that's better." We said, "Whoops" and re-tested him with this in mind.)

    Research - by John Komlos and others - seems to indicate that all "races" and other groups of humans other than a couple of actual tribes of pigmies (isolated genetic modifications long established as such) have similar or even identical genetic average heights.
    There's always been this presumption among white people about Asians being short - puny was a common description before WW2. My father commented that he and the other soldiers with him soon learned not to take anything they'd been told about Japanese soldiers as gospel. When you see gigantic, well-muscled blokes twice your own size rush out of the trees or loom out of machine gun posts at you, you know that it was all hogwash.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #417  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I'm thinking if a kid has a lower max IQ, then it's important to give them classes that are geared toward their abilities. The best way to ensure the kids in an IQ 85 community don't pick on that single smart kid is to give them classes where it's possible for them to still get an "A" with that 85 IQ of theirs. Then they feel encouraged to apply themselves, rather than ashamed every time they try. If the material is too hard, they'll try and cover up by pretending they simply don't care or the material is "dumb" or "not for them". As long as they're getting "A"'s and feel good about themselves, they won't mind if the smarter kid is getting A's too, and perhaps taking harder coursework.
    Speaking as one whose business for 10 years was remedial education, I couldn't disagree more. What you need is to give children whose previous inappropriate education (or lower IQ, or other learning impediment) is affecting their educational performance is graduated introduction to real, serious work. One startling result for low IQ students comes from the approach outlined in "The Myth of Ability" by John Mighton. I had no intention of organising the delivery of tuition in the way he has developed it, so more than half of my purchase price was unused. But it was still worth every cent. I strongly recommend picking it up cheaply on Amazon or similar 2nd hand shop, even if youre not involved in education. The introduction and first few chapters are fan. tas. tic.
    I've noticed the same tutoring math students. The pieces a person has missed on their way to the point where you're at matter quite a lot. It can make them feel like they are totally lacking in ability, when in fact they just don't have the building blocks. I see what you mean, because this factor can be much larger than the other one, but I've also seen the difference between kids who are naturally exceptionally bright and kids who are merely hard working and dedicated. Both are capable of mastering the material, but the bright kids master it and then some.



    Giving kids an 'A' for low standard, pointless, unproductive, lackadaisical make-work exercises is not just pointless, it's actually negative. Do you really think that children can't tell the difference between good and bad, useful and pointless? They know very well that the 'A' is meaningless for lower standard or poor quality work. What they want and need is the feeling of quiet satisfaction or shouted triumph that comes from mastering something that has eluded them, maybe for years if you're talking about fractions or decimals that are rarely taught 'properly' in years 4,5,6. You don't change what is taught, you change the way you teach it. Properly taught, absolutely every school student can do arithmetic, geometry and algebra to year 9-10 level. They can also learn spelling, punctuation and grammar - and learn how to support their writing with appropriate use of dictionaries and other references.


    I had some dumb friends growing up, and some smart friends. I noted that the dumb ones became discouraged if they were asked to do things that exceeded their natural ability (mostly things that required a lot of analysis.) If a kid becomes discouraged, you lose them. Of course that doesn't mean you give them material geared toward the mentally handicapped either. It's important to remember that the differences in IQ are small across many areas of academic accomplishment, and very sharp in a few areas.

    My observation has been that dumber kids have to work harder to memorize, but get a tremendous sense of satisfaction out of it. Smart kids are capable of complicated analysis that the dumber kids can't manage without lots of help, and the dumb kids don't enjoy it even when they succeed. I'll admit that is just my own observation, from a much more limited pool of experience than yours. I guess it depends on what you've been teaching. For me, it's only been math.

    So I wouldn't advise giving them pointless silly work. Just try and stay away from topics that require a high degree of analysis, focusing more on rote memory.


    There's always been this presumption among white people about Asians being short - puny was a common description before WW2. My father commented that he and the other soldiers with him soon learned not to take anything they'd been told about Japanese soldiers as gospel. When you see gigantic, well-muscled blokes twice your own size rush out of the trees or loom out of machine gun posts at you, you know that it was all hogwash.
    Human height - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Yeah. The average height difference for white males in the USA and Asian people in China is only about 3 inches. But this also highlights the common misconception about statistics. People somehow expect that they're not going to encounter outliers. That guy from China, Yao is one of the tallest players in the NBA isn't he (I don't really follow sports much, just noting)?

    It's this misconception we need to start dispelling, as well as the equal and opposite misconception that the existence of outliers invalidates the usefulness of statistics in general. Both are misconceptions.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #418  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    explain why Jewish people and Asian people have higher IQ than white people. Is their state of nurture better than that of white people?
    Quite likely, yes. They certainly are nurtured differently, on average - for example: it was once common among white people (aren't Jewish people "white" yet?) to hear of parents discouraging their children from wasting their time reading books and going to school, even getting angry at them for appearing to want to be "better than" their parents. Those children - and their descendents to this day - are part of the "white people" average. I haven't heard of any such common tradition among Asian or Jewish populations in the US.

    So.... are we at least past the point where we stop blaming economics? White people haven't been more oppressed or mistreated than Asian people, yet still demonstrate lower average IQ. If there's a difference in nurture, it must be more subtle than "years of oppression". So why do we blame oppression and bad economic conditions when discussing black peoples' lower test scores? Shouldn't that also be attributed to something more subtle?

    Or you know.... I've got a better idea that will satisfy everyone: let's just keep making it up as we go along. If the "parents encourage them more" theory starts to crumble, we can always just shift gears and argue that "rice is better for IQ than corn/junk food". And if a study group of Asian of foster kids who were raised by bad parents that fed them junk food starts outperforming white foster kids, ....... I guess we can start looking into what kind of shampoo they use to wash their hair. Nothing is ever going to convince you anyway. Your mind is already made up.

    The test of falsifiability is to ask yourself: If my theory were wrong, could an experiment be devised that would make me aware of it? If not, then you've stepped outside the realm of science.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #419  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    So.... are we at least past the point where we stop blaming economics? White people haven't been more oppressed or mistreated than Asian people, yet still demonstrate lower average IQ. If there's a difference in nurture, it must be more subtle than "years of oppression". So why do we blame oppression and bad economic conditions when discussing black peoples' lower test scores? Shouldn't that also be attributed to something more subtle?
    We don't need to because the research already strongly suggest socioeconomics accounts for the differences almost entirely.
    Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics - Brooks-Gunn - 2008 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library
    Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics - Brooks-Gunn - 2008 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library

    What we perhaps can do, and have done to some degree is try to better target the disadvantages which stem from being poor and lower children's intelligence. The study for example discusses lower birth weight to poor mothers which is associated with developmental problems in children-- potential remedy could be access to good prenatal care, education and nutrition for example. Researchers aren't just "making it up as we go along."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #420  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    So why do we blame oppression and bad economic conditions when discussing black peoples' lower test scores? Shouldn't that also be attributed to something more subtle?
    What we perhaps can do, and have done to some degree is try to better target the disadvantages which stem from being poor and lower children's intelligence. The study for example discusses lower birth weight to poor mothers which is associated with developmental problems in children-- potential remedy could be access to good prenatal care, education and nutrition for example. Researchers aren't just "making it up as we go along."
    And let's never overlook 'culture'. Unfortunately, cultural influences aren't as obvious as we might like. If you read Thomas Sowell's history stuff, you'll find that he links oafish behaviour, ignorant anti-education attitudes, and absence of good business/employment attitudes from 16th century Scottish highlanders to the perceived undesirable characteristics of freed southern slaves. The criticisms of the behaviour and attitudes of freed southerners moving north came from black residents of northern cities - whose background was from the Caribbean and other non-southern US areas.

    You really should read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". The book title comes from the first essay in a book of several really, really interesting essays on cultural attitudes to education and business practice. Generalised, world-wide dislike of 'the middleman' whether it's in POW camps or Uganda expelling the Indian traders 'exploiting' the black population. Why is there common dislike of Korean, Chinese, Indian, German, Jewish entrepreneurs in practically every country they move to? The first essay is absolutely stunning. But the others are deeply thought-provoking. I have a special interest in the education chapter later in the book. Sowell is absolutely scathing about 'ebonics' and various other 'pander to perceived disadvantage' education approaches. (And, I might add for any who hadn't worked out my own attitudes, I have never once in my life agreed with anything Sowell has written about economics or politics. But his approach to economic and cultural history is superb.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #421  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    So.... are we at least past the point where we stop blaming economics? White people haven't been more oppressed or mistreated than Asian people, yet still demonstrate lower average IQ. If there's a difference in nurture, it must be more subtle than "years of oppression". So why do we blame oppression and bad economic conditions when discussing black peoples' lower test scores? Shouldn't that also be attributed to something more subtle?
    We don't need to because the research already strongly suggest socioeconomics accounts for the differences almost entirely.
    Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics - Brooks-Gunn - 2008 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library
    Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics - Brooks-Gunn - 2008 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library
    Reading it over, I have to say I would be much more comfortable with this study if they had simply chosen to test groups of kids who exclusively fell into the same income (52% of the difference) and "provision of learning experiences" groups (28% of the expected difference). Instead, they determined how much those two factors would be expected to influence IQ, and then adjusted the scores after the fact.

    That means the strength of their findings rests in the reliability of those adjustments. They found a strong correlation between poverty and low IQ, but as other posters have repeatedly pointed out to me, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causality. Apparently these researchers don't know that, though, because they've presented that correlation as an adjustment to the scores.

    Unless we accept that poverty is absolutely never even partially the result of a parent's lower IQ, we can be certain that the causal relationship they're assuming (poverty -> low IQ) is at least imperfect. Maybe low IQ causes higher Poverty and higher poverty causes low IQ both, but if so then we'd have to weaken the value of the adjustment. Maybe black kids would be testing closer to white kids, instead of a full standard deviation lower, but after we lessen the poverty adjustment (as we probably should do), they still wouldn't match up with the white kids in the study.

    On the other hand, if the (Low IQ -> High Poverty) causality is strong, then to the degree it is strong, the other must be weak. They're sharing the correlation between them. Unfortunately, we don't know how large each one's slice of the pie is.


    What we perhaps can do, and have done to some degree is try to better target the disadvantages which stem from being poor and lower children's intelligence. The study for example discusses lower birth weight to poor mothers which is associated with developmental problems in children-- potential remedy could be access to good prenatal care, education and nutrition for example. Researchers aren't just "making it up as we go along."
    Again we're dodging the white people vs. Asian people problem, aren't we? How much better access to Asian people have to prenatal care?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #422  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    ..... on the other hand, we do know for sure that, even if low IQ plays a causal role in determining poverty, black people in the USA are poorer than the level that effect would lead to, for reasons that have nothing to do with IQ.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #423  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Again we're dodging the white people vs. Asian people problem, aren't we? How much better access to Asian people have to prenatal care?
    Actually I tackled it head on by noting the study which suggest the Asian population were self selecting and might possible actually have higher genetic IQ potential in the US because the immigrants came from the higher IQ sample than the general Asian IQ. The differences in IQ are just higher than the statistical margin of error anyhow.

    They found a strong correlation between poverty and low IQ, but as other posters have repeatedly pointed out to me, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causality.
    That as a rule is deliberately meant to suggest it takes more than correlation to make a scientific case. The study in case doesn't do that....it not only shows the correlations but a viable hypothesis as to why. Poverty, irregardless of race, dramatically drops IQ for reasons we've already somewhat discussed--including worse health of the mother, unavailability of good prenatal education leading to lower birth weight of the child, and a physically and mentally less nurturing home life.

    Here's a summation of a more recent study that was race neutral, just looking at effects of poverty and brain activity.
    "Brain function was measured by means of an electroencephalograph (EEG)--basically, a cap fitted with electrodes to measure electrical activity in the brain--like that used to assess epilepsy, sleep disorders and brain tumors.

    "Kids from lower socioeconomic levels show brain physiology patterns similar to someone who actually had damage in the frontal lobe as an adult," said Robert Knight, director of the institute and a UC Berkeley professor of psychology. "We found that kids are more likely to have a low response if they have low socioeconomic status, though not everyone who is poor has low frontal lobe response."

    ""The study is suggestive and a little bit frightening that environmental conditions have such a strong impact on brain development," said Silvia Bunge, UC Berkeley assistant professor of psychology who is leading the intervention studies on prefrontal cortex development in teenagers by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)."
    Research Claims Children's Brain Function Affected By Poverty

    There is also positive feedbacks to poverty, as you infer. If you're brought up to a poor family you're more likely not to reach your full genetic IQ potential and are more likely to be poor and hence disadvantage the next generation. This is why it really important as a society we get more precise about where we can help and make a difference--programs to help mothers are probably much simpler and efficient than trying to raise an entire group out of poverty--whether their inner city blacks, or a white from an Eastern Kentucky coal town.

    Here's another project that studies twins
    "Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and non-shared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse. "
    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/14/6/623.short

    Again, it hits on that range of response I discussed in an earlier post. Kids raised in poor families don't reach their full potential, or in this studies case, not even the range of potential they'll have if raised in an affluent environment. It's like their "smart genes" never get turned on.


    Maybe black kids would be testing closer to white kids, instead of a full standard deviation lower, but after we lessen the poverty adjustment (as we probably should do), they still wouldn't match up with the white kids in the study.
    The study I posted isn't' the only one that tries to isolate the race effect--they consistently arrive within the margin of error...less than a 3-5 point difference after socio-economic factors and home life are considered. Even if that residual is real the picture is a group by group range of 5 to 10 points for all of humanity but a 70 point spread of IQ of people within each of those groups. The implications are clear--we are a lot more alike than different, far too alike to generalize the group differences to individuals and should in any case focus on maximizing potential intelligence of individuals.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 3rd, 2012 at 08:14 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #424  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Since we're back into the studies. Here is the original site I posted again, for anyone who doesn't feel like scrolling back a bunch of pages to find it:

    Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

    Note items 5-7:

    1. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
    2. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
    3. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
    1. Simus was kind enough to post a more complete paper on the topic.

      Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
      What an awful website. Found the link on google instead.

      http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...sen30years.pdf

      It's about 60 pages long, so give me some time. At first glance it looks like a simple literature review, but we'll see.
      They mention that tests that usually vary more with environment tend to vary less with race, while those tests which vary less with environment, tend to vary more with race. For example, this part:



      Nichols (1972, cited in Jensen, 1973, pp. 116 –117) was the first to apply
      differential heritabilities in the study of racial-group differences. He estimated the
      heritability of 13 tests from 543 pairs of 7-year-old siblings, including an equal
      number of Blacks and Whites, and found a .67 correlation between the heritability
      of a test and the magnitude of the Black–White group difference on that test.
      Subsequently,Jensen (1973, pp. 103–119) calculated the environmentality of a
      test (defined as the degree to which sibling correlations departed from the pure
      genetic expectation of 0.50) in Black and in White children and found it was
      inversely related to the magnitude of the Black–White group difference (r
      –.70); that is,the more environmentally influenced a test, the less pronounced its
      Black–White group difference

      Another side note that reinforces my other point, about IQ selecting for poverty (instead of it always having to be the other way around).



      Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks
      and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A
      meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed
      it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic
      Aptitude Test (SAT; N 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination
      (GRE; N 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings
      (N 0.5 million) and in the military (N 0.4 million). Because test scores are
      the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter,
      1998), these group differ

      You may be right about Asian countries self selecting, though. Maybe the test never reaches students who didn't make the entrance exam requirements to be educated in the first place, while in the USA we're big on trying to educate everyone.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #425  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I don't kown Kojak, it's a study of studies which in this case might include a good share of bad historical studies and coincidently reaches the same conclusion as the author's post doctorate work in the 60s.

    It's statements like this which give me pause: ""Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. " Did those "other variables" include the prenatal health of the poor mothers?" Just saying.

    The about 50% genetic potential connection between individuals is not in doubt; the genetic difference between groups is much more tenuous seems pretty small compared to other effects which are admitting hard to separate out. This is why I liked the twin study, it isolates for many of the factors and found only a tiny difference compared to socioeconomics.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #426  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I've just had a quick reread of some of these posts. I don't know whether it's in the papers and articles referred to, but there seems one glaring problem.

    IQ is not fixed. Even though we don't say it explicitly, the prime aim of education is to raise IQ.

    This must necessarily include the much wider notion of education, what happens with infants and littlies before they get anywhere near a school. But when we talk about 'parental IQ' we are already taking into account what good or bad things might have happened in educating the parents. And this is not heritable. It's only 'transmissible' in the sense that uneducated parents who've not reached their 'potential', may have inadequate parenting and health approaches that disadvantage their children.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #427  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The about 50% genetic potential connection between individuals is not in doubt; the genetic difference between groups is much more tenuous seems pretty small compared to other effects which are admitting hard to separate out. This is why I liked the twin study, it isolates for many of the factors and found only a tiny difference compared to socioeconomics.
    Indeed. We had a lengthy discussion on this a long while ago here as well. It looks like socio-economics is by far the most variable attributer to IQ. While twin studies still show a difference between "races", I think that the answer might be in epigenetics, though that is only a speculation on my part. So, while DNA might play a larger role in individual IQs, it does not really factor on the "race" level.

    Also, when one considers that IQ is not really a good indicator of intelligence, then the ambiguity broadens even further. Studies show average IQ of black Africans in the 70s (lower than Forest Gump), with Bushmen scoring in the low 50s. That shows an obvious flaw with the IQ system, because in the West a person with an IQ of 50 would be barely functional, while Bushmen show great resourcefulness and ability within their own milieu.

    Another factor that add to variability even further, is the Flynn effect, where IQ scores on the same tests go up generation after generation due to reasons not well understood.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #428  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    This must necessarily include the much wider notion of education, what happens with infants and littlies before they get anywhere near a school.
    I'll echo that as well. It doesn't fit the American school model very well though, because in most cases, children won't get under the eyes of an expert in child development until they reach school at five years. Unfortunately, by five, there are already some missed opportunities. I was surprised to find out that our State has dozens of scouts who travel to places where pre-school kids are, such as pre-schools, play grounds, church groups, laundry mats trying to observe children and talk to their parents to identify kids lagging in development. When they find a child suspect of being behind they educate parents about getting expert help and linking to the many programs available. A three year old with hearing aids, or eye glasses could make the difference in IQ when that child grows up. Autism requires much more intense treatment. Here to, poverty works against children in the US, because poor parent seek less medical checks for their themselves and their offspring by doctors and other professionals.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #429  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2
    Lots of misinformation posted in this thread. Firstly, Asian is a geographic term, not racial. Most of Southern Asia is inhabited by heavily admixed Caucasoids, not Mongoloids. Secondly the countries of Asia have diverse IQ's. Only a small segment of the Eastern Asia block (incl. Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan) have high IQ's, the rest of the countries in Asia are either average (for example China and Indonesia) or average-low (such as the Indian subcontinent). Most European countries have far higher IQ's than Asian countries, only Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan are 4 or 5 points on average higher. As a continent as a whole however, Europe is the highest. Ashkenazi Jews though have the highest IQ's worldwide 110 - 115, and they are Caucasoid. Negroids have the lowest IQ's, 70, which is borderline mental retard. Black Sub-Saharan African tribes can't even count their fingers, they don't know basic arithmetic. Black Americans however are 15 points higher in IQ, average. The obvious explanation for this is because genetics has revealed Black Americans are on average about 12 - 20 % White European (Caucasoid), through admixture through the slave trade, so in actual fact they aren't homogenous Black at all, but mixed-race, a more appropiate term for them would be ''Afro-Europeans'', which is appearing in more literature thesedays in light of what the genetics has revealed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #430  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Hey, you must be forests' brother who got banned from wikipedia for being a fascist!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #431  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    IQ is not fixed. Even though we don't say it explicitly, the prime aim of education is to raise IQ.

    .
    I don't know. Some kids are real prodigies. Some people have photographic memories, or can do long hand multiplication in their head... stuff like that. I doubt any amount of parenting would fully explain it, nor that any amount of parenting could impart it into a kid who isn't already showing the ability. I also doubt all prodigies had great parents who worked with them.

    We have to leave this as a mixed - nature & nurture hypothesis until some evidence emerges that is capable of absolutely excluding one or the other of the explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nord View Post
    Lots of misinformation posted in this thread. Firstly, Asian is a geographic term, not racial. Most of Southern Asia is inhabited by heavily admixed Caucasoids, not Mongoloids. Secondly the countries of Asia have diverse IQ's. Only a small segment of the Eastern Asia block (incl. Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan) have high IQ's, the rest of the countries in Asia are either average (for example China and Indonesia) or average-low (such as the Indian subcontinent).
    Though you admit that the areas in Asia where the IQ is largest are the same areas where there is the least mixture with Caucasions. There is actually a theory of human evolution that suggests we evolved our larger brain by way of a process called "neoteny" whereby our bodies took on childish traits (including proportionally larger head). Anyway, mongoloids are considered to be more neotenized than most racial groups, and having a higher average IQ would be possible consequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki neoteny
    Stephen Oppenheimer claimed, "An interesting hypothesis put forward by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould many years ago was that the package of the Mongoloid anatomical changes could be explained by the phenomenon of neoteny, whereby an infantile or childlike body form is preserved in adult life. Neoteny in hominids is still one of the simplest explanations of how we developed a disproportionately large brain so rapidly over the past few million years. The relatively large brain and the forward rotation of the skull on the spinal column, and body hair loss, both characteristic of humans, are found in foetal chimps. Gould suggested a mild intensification of neoteny in Mongoloids, in whom it has been given the name pedomorphy. Such a mechanism is likely to involve only a few controller genes and could therefore happen over a relatively short evolutionary period. It would also explain how the counterintuitive retrousse [turned up at the end] nose and relative loss of facial hair got into the package."[30] "[D]ecrease unnecessary muscle bulk, less tooth mass, thinner bones and smaller physical size; ...this follows the selective adaptive model of Mongoloid evolution.
    Neoteny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Most European countries have far higher IQ's than Asian countries, only Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan are 4 or 5 points on average higher. As a continent as a whole however, Europe is the highest. Ashkenazi Jews though have the highest IQ's worldwide 110 - 115, and they are Caucasoid. Negroids have the lowest IQ's, 70, which is borderline mental retard. Black Sub-Saharan African tribes can't even count their fingers, they don't know basic arithmetic. Black Americans however are 15 points higher in IQ, average. The obvious explanation for this is because genetics has revealed Black Americans are on average about 12 - 20 % White European (Caucasoid), through admixture through the slave trade, so in actual fact they aren't homogenous Black at all, but mixed-race, a more appropiate term for them would be ''Afro-Europeans'', which is appearing in more literature thesedays in light of what the genetics has revealed.
    I don't know what to say to this. It's mixed informative and uninformative. How does it matter if one group of people doesn't know how to count on their fingers? That's clearly more a question of nurture than nature, unless it were further demonstrated that their children can't be taught to do so. I'd prefer if we could limit our analysis to data that would exclusively demonstrate genetics if we're going to be making genetic arguments.

    I'm trying to be all objective and stuff. And unobjective information can really get in the way of that, whether it favors my perspective or not. Naturally I realize that objective analysis produces information that can be useful to people who are not objective. I don't see it as my job to correct for that by skewing results in the politically beautiful direction, however.

    If IQ is genetically determined, then we should expect that any groups that have been genetically isolated enough to look different should also have different average IQ levels, though there would be many outliers (enough to make the data useless when applied to an individual.) It may be useful for analyzing the behavior of communities, however. That's really the question. Also if races are divided by IQ levels, then their differences in social and economic status may be the result of that, and not truly unfair.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #432  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Negroids have the lowest IQ's, 70, which is borderline mental retard. Black Sub-Saharan African tribes can't even count their fingers, they don't know basic arithmetic
    Are you insane? What the hell is wrong with you people? I am suspending both you and your brother for a few days while your fates are discussed in the mod section. Forests on his own is bad enough, but two of you, one worse than the other? No thanks.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #433  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    nord.....gump....?

    "Stupid is as stupid does, sir"
    KALSTER likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #434  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So.... are we at least past the point where we stop blaming economics? White people haven't been more oppressed or mistreated than Asian people, yet still demonstrate lower average IQ. If there's a difference in nurture, it must be more subtle than "years of oppression". So why do we blame oppression and bad economic conditions when discussing black peoples' lower test scores? Shouldn't that also be attributed to something more subtle?
    Why would we exclude the many subtle and pervasive effects of economic and racial oppression from our consideration of "nurture"?

    Why would we decide to ignore the differences in the ways yellows, blacks, reds, browns, and whites were oppressed and impoverished (as many whites were), and the differences in the cultural resources available to handle that oppression and impoverishment, when considering the subtle aspects of nurture?

    Lead poisoning and such simpler factors alone, never mind the destruction of long-refined cultural traditions of intellectual development (something the Jews and Asians in general better escaped, but several groups of whites pioneering in the US suffered to a degree) and exclusion from those new ones best supported by the dominant culture, for example, are part of nurture.

    Even if you go way out beyond any support in research or common sense; argue that there are features of "US sociological black" culture not influenced by the centuries of the massive international slave trade from Africa or the economic and political oppression subsequent to it, and that an IQ test can reliably measure and compare the mental capability differences these features inculcate, so what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #435  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    ] Why would we exclude the many subtle and pervasive effects of economic and racial oppression from our consideration of "nurture"?

    Why would we decide to ignore the differences in the ways yellows, blacks, reds, browns, and whites were oppressed and impoverished (as many whites were), and the differences in the cultural resources available to handle that oppression and impoverishment, when considering the subtle aspects of nurture?
    Because we know that somehow, in spite of all that oppression, the "yellows" as you so affectionately refer to them, don't have lower IQ scores than white people. An explanation that only works some of the time is just a superstition.

    Half the time, if I throw salt over my left shoulder, I have good luck. The other half of the time I don't. Does that mean I just didn't throw the salt right those times? Maybe we should start sacrificing people on the alter again. That seemed to give the Aztecs good harvests (except when it didn't.) Or we can blame everything on oppression because we "know" that oppression makes people dumb (except when it doesn't.)



    Even if you go way out beyond any support in research or common sense; argue that there are features of "US sociological black" culture not influenced by the centuries of the massive international slave trade from Africa or the economic and political oppression subsequent to it, and that an IQ test can reliably measure and compare the mental capability differences these features inculcate, so what?
    It's useful information, so long as we understand the limitations of statistics well enough not to over-apply it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #436  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Because we know that somehow, in spite of all that oppression, the "yellows" as you so affectionately refer to them, don't have lower IQ scores than white people. An explanation that only works some of the time is just a superstition.
    Oppression is not a single, uniform entity whose only dimension is quantity. It is not a single factor proposed as an explanation for anything.

    The yellows have not been oppressed in the same sense, by the same means, with the same intensity, or in the same circumstances, as the reds, browns, blacks, or whites. To assume that "oppression" of any kind, by any means, under any circumstances and larger context, for any duration, by anyone, with any visible effects on - in particular - nurturing of children, would have equivalent effects on measured IQ or the relationship of measured IQ to any inherent physical or mental capability, would be a serious mistake.

    It is quite possible, for example (it's been argued by intelligent and informed representatives of the principals involved) that the oppression of the Jewish whites throughout Europe for hundreds of years enforced a traditional culture of nurturing that currently boosts the measured IQ scores of Jewish whites.

    That, if true, would not mean that the three century oppression of blacks in the US should be rejected as a factor in the suppression of measured black IQ scores.
    Last edited by iceaura; April 5th, 2012 at 03:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #437  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    We have to leave this as a mixed - nature & nurture hypothesis until some evidence emerges that is capable of absolutely excluding one or the other of the explanations.
    I think that beside genetics and environment there also could be strong influence of accidental factors.Otherwise how to explain that children in the same family who suppose to have very similar genetics and education could be so different.There is lots of examples when some people become great scientists but their brothers did not.I think this is because genetics cannot program any sole neuron in your brain (there is tens of billions of them) and rather influences some general levels of abilities.The same thing relates to moral and spirituals qualities of people.Brothers and sisters could be quite different spiritually.But I think that under normal and relatively favorable environmental conditions influence of genetics is quite high.
    Last edited by Stanley514; April 5th, 2012 at 07:35 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #438  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Because we know that somehow, in spite of all that oppression, the "yellows" as you so affectionately refer to them, don't have lower IQ scores than white people. An explanation that only works some of the time is just a superstition.
    Oppression is not a single, uniform entity whose only dimension is quantity. It is not a single factor proposed as an explanation for anything.

    The yellows have not been oppressed in the same sense, by the same means, with the same intensity, or in the same circumstances, as the reds, browns, blacks, or whites. To assume that "oppression" of any kind, by any means, under any circumstances and larger context, for any duration, by anyone, with any visible effects on - in particular - nurturing of children, would have equivalent effects on measured IQ or the relationship of measured IQ to any inherent physical or mental capability, would be a serious mistake.
    In other words: it's a bunch of gobblelygook and you don't actually have a workable hypothesis in there anywhere.

    If the interaction between IQ and environment is so wildly variant that there is no way to predict, based on a general knowledge of a culture's conditions, what the effect will be on their IQ scores, then how can you say with confidence that anything causes low or high IQ? We're abandoning the age of reason here.

    Next you'll tell me to dig up any recently deceased relatives and drive a wooden stake through their chest.... just in case. Because for all I know, it's possible they would have risen as vampires without the stake there. I can't prove they wouldn't have!!



    It is quite possible, for example (it's been argued by intelligent and informed representatives of the principals involved) that the oppression of the Jewish whites throughout Europe for hundreds of years enforced a traditional culture of nurturing that currently boosts the measured IQ scores of Jewish whites.

    That, if true, would not mean that the three century oppression of blacks in the US should be rejected as a factor in the suppression of measured black IQ scores.
    It doesn't rule it out, but science isn't about adopting theories because they haven't been ruled out. There needs to be a positive reason to accept a theory. How does your hypothesis conform to the data any better than the other hypotheses?

    Outside of South Africa, people who actually lived in Sub Sahara Africa weren't directly oppressed until more recently in World History. The Scramble for Africa, where it all got partitioned started in 1888, after the slaves had been freed in the USA. Until then, the Ottoman Empire was the only group that really interacted with them very much, and whatever bad we may say about Muslims, racism doesn't figure prominently among their shortcomings.

    Scramble for Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Slaves taken from Africa in the slave trade would have ended up as African Americans (or in other countries), and African Americans score on average 15 points higher than their cousins who didn't get enslaved. I don't think very many of the prisoners were returned to their homeland after being taken. So....it seems yet again that the more oppressed group has the higher IQ scores.....
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #439  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    We have to leave this as a mixed - nature & nurture hypothesis until some evidence emerges that is capable of absolutely excluding one or the other of the explanations.
    I think that beside genetics and environment there also could be strong influence of accidental factors.Otherwise how to explain that children in the same family who suppose to have very similar genetics and education could be so different.There is lots of examples when some people become great scientists but their brothers did not.I think this is because genetics cannot program any sole neuron in your brain (there is tens of billions of them) and rather influences some general levels of abilities.The same thing relates to moral and spirituals qualities of people.Brothers and sisters could be quite different spiritually.But I think that under normal and relatively favorable environmental conditions influence of genetics is quite high.
    It's understood that the IQ of the children of parents with exceptionally high IQ regresses toward the average. That tells you that there is quite a lot of variability in what parts of a single person's DNA gets passed onto their children.

    It's important to remember that, with all the variability, statistics for a person's race can't be applied to them individually. It can be applied to a community because of the statistical "Law of Large Numbers" which predicts that the variations within a large pool of individuals will always cancel out so there are (approximately) equal amounts of exceptionally high and exceptionally low values.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #440  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If the interaction between IQ and environment is so wildly variant that there is no way to predict, based on a general knowledge of a culture's conditions, what the effect will be on their IQ scores, then how can you say with confidence that anything causes low or high IQ?
    What? I'm the one claiming important and investigatable connections between environment and IQ. You're the one claiming no predictable relationship - based on your conception of "oppression" as being some kind of unitary, simple thing that varies only in existence or nonexistence.

    And no, I don't think we can say with confidence that anything in particular "causes" high IQ.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It doesn't rule it out, but science isn't about adopting theories because they haven't been ruled out.
    Science is not about ruling out theories because you haven't investigated them, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Slaves taken from Africa in the slave trade would have ended up as African Americans (or in other countries), and African Americans score on average 15 points higher than their cousins who didn't get enslaved. I don't think very many of the prisoners were returned to their homeland after being taken. So....it seems yet again that the more oppressed group has the higher IQ scores.....
    Once again this "more oppressed/less oppressed" language.

    I am no longer sure what you are talking about. Are you saying that the environment of subSaharan Africa has been more conducive to nurturing high IQ scores in children than the environment in the US? Or less conducive? And if so how?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #441  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's understood that the IQ of the children of parents with exceptionally high IQ regresses toward the average. That tells you that there is quite a lot of variability in what parts of a single person's DNA gets passed onto their children.
    Actually, once conditions are accounted for the correlations are over 85%...high IQ parents overwhelmingly produce high IQ children unless there's the kids are raised in a deprived environment or have some illness.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #442  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If the interaction between IQ and environment is so wildly variant that there is no way to predict, based on a general knowledge of a culture's conditions, what the effect will be on their IQ scores, then how can you say with confidence that anything causes low or high IQ?
    What? I'm the one claiming important and investigatable connections between environment and IQ. You're the one claiming no predictable relationship - based on your conception of "oppression" as being some kind of unitary, simple thing that varies only in existence or nonexistence.
    We can start with Occam's Razor. The hypothesis that requires the least separate postulated causes tends to be correct.

    Going back to your original question:

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post

    Why would we decide to ignore the differences in the ways yellows, blacks, reds, browns, and whites were oppressed and impoverished (as many whites were), and the differences in the cultural resources available to handle that oppression and impoverishment, when considering the subtle aspects of nurture?

    Lead poisoning and such simpler factors alone, never mind the destruction of long-refined cultural traditions of intellectual development (something the Jews and Asians in general better escaped, but several groups of whites pioneering in the US suffered to a degree) and exclusion from those new ones best supported by the dominant culture, for example, are part of nurture.
    Do you have some kind of analysis, or are you just saying that, because there are so many factors, you feel that there "just has to be" an explanation in there somewhere? It sounds like special pleading to me. You're saying that as long as not every last possible avenue has been thoroughly investigated to exhaustion, I ought to blindly assume your hypothesis is correct. Please either present some data or let it go.



    And no, I don't think we can say with confidence that anything in particular "causes" high IQ.
    The genetic hypothesis is pretty strong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's understood that the IQ of the children of parents with exceptionally high IQ regresses toward the average. That tells you that there is quite a lot of variability in what parts of a single person's DNA gets passed onto their children.
    Actually, once conditions are accounted for the correlations are over 85%...high IQ parents overwhelmingly produce high IQ children unless there's the kids are raised in a deprived environment or have some illness.
    Not wanting to doubt you, because usually your comments are accurate, but do have any kind of reference for that? I like to have a source I can look back to for any future discussions on the topic.

    Note that, when they say it "regresses to the average" I don't think that means geniuses have average kids. I think it means their kids are smart, but less so, and proceed to get less and less over generations until they reach the average.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #443  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I might have overstated the %, but look if you look at one of the studies I posted early about IQ variation and this one http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...7&size=largest
    You'll find genetics alone expresses itself at over 60% among intelligence and affluent families, and the children get an additional boast from the environment. Less intelligence parents who also are more often poor in the US tend to limit the gene expression and potential of their children. A double boost from high IQ parents or a double whammy from less intelligent parents.

    Also of interest I've been looking for a pretty large study of black children adopted into affluent white families--the children turned out with above average intelligence of white and black children.

    Sadly this strong connection shows up very large in the many standardized test done the US that have their own strong correlations to IQ test such as the PISA, SATs etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #444  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Also of interest I've been looking for a pretty large study of black children adopted into affluent white families--the children turned out with above average intelligence of white and black children.

    Sadly this strong connection shows up very large in the many standardized test done the US that have their own strong correlations to IQ test such as the PISA, SATs etc.
    That's the kind of investigation we need. Sometimes I think people are afraid of it, because of the possibility that the data won't correspond with the beliefs that we feel we need to hold socially, but I'm glad to hear some research teams have been brave enough to take a look. Probably racists and non-racists alike fear what may come of it, because either side might find themselves in a weaker position.

    I see the terms "G" and "E" come up a lot. Apparently a high "G" loaded test is one where the scores tend to be less affected by environmental factors, while a high "E" loaded test is one where environment plays a larger role. Just something to watch for when you're researching this stuff. I think most of the things that we regard as being indicative of high IQ are learn-able, while some are not. Otherwise all tests would show roughly the same relationship between environment and higher scores.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #445  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    That's the kind of investigation we need. Sometimes I think people are afraid of it, because of the possibility that the data won't correspond with the beliefs that we feel we need to hold socially, but I'm glad to hear some research teams have been brave enough to take a look.
    It's been done. Found it. (bolded for emphasis)

    "The poor performance of Black children on IQ tests and in school has been hypothesized to arise from (a) genetic racial differences or (b) cultural/environmental disadvantages. To separate genetic factors from rearing conditions, 130 Black and interracial children adopted by advantaged White families were studied. The socially classified Black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the White population. Biological children of the adoptive parents scored even higher. Genetic and environmental determinants of differences among the Black and interracial adoptees were largely confounded. The high IQ scores of the socially classified Black adoptees indicate malleability for IQ under rearing conditions that are relevant to the tests and the schools. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)"
    http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

    The huge disadvantage for poverty shows up other places as well.


    Oddly enough it doesn't show up in many international test (I was looking at PISA some time ago). I think it's a disgrace. It's not that we can raise everyone out of poverty....but there's a lot of things that can be done and are at risk if we aren't careful about our cuts in the next decade or so. A dollar invested in a poor kid probably pays itself many times over in raised IQ, performance, job opportunities and overall benefits to the US economy. Also to branch into another related area, there's quite a few studies that show cognitive gain for learning a couple languages---yet in the US there's almost xenophobic-based fear of true bilingual programs.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #446  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It makes sense. For any large population to test as mental retarded, and yet not walk around and act like it, there would have to be a nurture component. So clearly not all of the 30 point gap is explainable by genetics. And yet some of it also appears still to be. It looks like it's mixed nurture/nature.

    I wonder if it's kind of a snowball effect? You start with a population that's just a few IQ points below the other, and they go on to build a society with less wealth and less competent parents, which in turn contributes negatively to the environmental aspect of IQ, which further lowers their total IQ, causing their society to end up even worse, contributing still more environmental effects on IQ..... which cycles until some kind of equilibrium is reached where everyone is poor and dumb.

    Probably capitalism contributes to this spiral because when people compete for jobs or sales or other resources, the loser of that competition need only be just slightly less skilled than the winner, and the winner takes all (or very nearly all, depending on what market we're discussing).
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #447  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Oddly enough it doesn't show up in many international test (I was looking at PISA some time ago).
    Maybe that's because PISA's more interested in education systems rather than individuals.

    PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is an international study which began in the year 2000. It aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in participating countries/economies.
    From PISA
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #448  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    It's understood that the IQ of the children of parents with exceptionally high IQ regresses toward the average. That tells you that there is quite a lot of variability in what parts of a single person's DNA gets passed onto their children.
    I don`t think that absolutely everithing is programed by DNA and environment.I bet, even twins who have absolutely the same DNA and environment could grow different in some aspects.Biological structures cannot be programed with the same precision as say, a computer.What is concerning some extraordinary abilities then it is often quite unpredictable.Otherwise we already whould have clone entire army of genious people.The closer to the highest functions of spirituality the more difficult to find a reason.Though on average basic level of IQ may be strongly dependent on genetics.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #449  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    It's understood that the IQ of the children of parents with exceptionally high IQ regresses toward the average. That tells you that there is quite a lot of variability in what parts of a single person's DNA gets passed onto their children.  
    I don`t think that absolutely everithing is programed by DNA and environment.I bet, even twins who have absolutely the same DNA and environment could grow different in some aspects.Biological structures cannot be programed with the same precision as say, a computer.What is concerning some extraordinary abilities then it is often quite unpredictable.Otherwise we already whould have clone entire army of genious people.The closer to the highest functions of spirituality the more difficult to find a reason.Though on average basic level of IQ may be strongly dependent on genetics.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #450  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I bet, even twins who have absolutely the same DNA and environment
    Twins don't have completely identical DNA. Their environements are never identical.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #451  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    It's understood that the IQ of the children of parents with exceptionally high IQ regresses toward the average. That tells you that there is quite a lot of variability in what parts of a single person's DNA gets passed onto their children.  
    I don`t think that absolutely everithing is programed by DNA and environment.I bet, even twins who have absolutely the same DNA and environment could grow different in some aspects.Biological structures cannot be programed with the same precision as say, a computer.What is concerning some extraordinary abilities then it is often quite unpredictable. Otherwise we already whould have clone entire army of genious people. The closer to the highest functions of spirituality the more difficult to find a reason.Though on average basic level of IQ may be strongly dependent on genetics.
    Adelady did a pretty good job of explaining exactly why that wouldn't happen on a whole other thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It's not economically viable because everyone would want to be part of the lazy class. As it stands, the Social Security program in the USA provides for people who are physically disabled in a way where they literally cannot work, or handicapped.
    And let's never overlook the role of technology in disenfranchising significant minorities within our populations. 50 years ago there were heaps of jobs for people of limited ability. The wonderful advances in technology that have made life so much easier for people with physical handicaps have come in parallel with other developments that have deprived many people of worthwhile satisfying work.

    Sweeping up in streets and factories, routine work in packing and sorting, garbage collection and management have all had severely reduced workforces. I know here that parole officers were very unhappy about modern rubbish collection methods being introduced. They used to be able to place newly released prisoners in the run-beside-the-truck-and-pick-up-the-bins type jobs. Now there's only the driver and that's a skilled job, esp by comparison with the old system. So finding paid work for mostly illiterate men with employers willing to take on ex-prisoners got instantly harder. Prisoners' literacy hasn't improved over the years, but jobs for anyone who's illiterate are getting fewer and further between.

    For people with significant intellectual limitations, supervisors used to find them excellent workers for those tasks that others found boring or tedious. Cleaning or packing are the usual examples. They were both punctual and punctilious in attention to detail - also a bit inflexible, once taught, never, ever forgotten is fine until you introduce changes. Now machines do most of the packaging, and even where some must be done by hand, it's often in warehouses where there are all sorts of distracting and dangerous activities going on which makes managing such workers more difficult. Now, work opportunities are much more restricted to 'sheltered' workshops where the whole object of the exercise is to organise and manage a workforce with the same kind of problems. Having Johnny who's 'not too bright' as a feature of ordinary workplaces as a sweeper-upper or general dogsbody is becoming less and less common.
    Darwinian selection takes time. We can't expect technological conditions that are still not even 100 years old to be reflected in our DNA just yet.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #452  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    To separate genetic factors from rearing conditions, 130 Black and interracial children adopted by advantaged White families were studied. The socially classified Black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the White population.
    To add to the significance of that study, we note that adoption does not wholly insulate children from the disadvantages accruing to non-white race in American and similar society. In addition to the factors surrounding adoption itself, there are still significant racial disadvantages in being black in America that do not depend on one's parental or household race and demographics. The remaining disparities in IQ scores etc, in such a study, cannot be automatically or heedlessly assigned to genetics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #453  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If you're looking for mitigating factors, another one you could add is that, since IQ is considered a strong predictor of economic success, the parents of children who end up being adopted out are likely to have been less intelligent than the affluent parents. So we're comparing black children who's birth parents come from the least intelligent section of the black community against white children who's birth parents come from the most intelligent section of the white community.

    It's still a very good study, though. We need more like that, which try to their best ability to isolate what factors they can. It's never going to be possible to isolate everything in a study. If all you need is for there to exist a small measure of plausible deniability in the alternative hypothesis, and that will convince you that your own hypothesis is therefore certain to be correct, then I am afraid there is nothing science can do to help you. You should go join a religion.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #454  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I think it suffices that the study clearly demonstrated that privileged black children will out score non-privilege white children. It proves that circumstance plays a role. The only mistake is in thinking that just because something plays a role, that it must automatically account for 100% of every disparity.

    I'm just thinking if we want to not be racists, then we should do it in a way where we don't feel the need to overstate our case. If you overstate your case, you are indirectly admitting you don't fully believe it. Otherwise, why would you feel the need to augment the truth?

    I think that's the point of this whole thread. It appears like there are a lot of people who want the pendulum of racism to swing the other way. In science, that means they want an irrational bias that previously influenced scientific thought in one unjustified direction to be replaced with another irrational bias that influences it the other way, but that's not scientific. Science should strive to be as objective as possible, with absolute zero regard for the potential social consequences. The moment you succumb to the temptation to start to let one social agenda interfere with observing and reporting, you put your scientific findings in a position where nobody really knows whether to believe you or not anymore.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #455  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    185
    Another example of the oppression of the white race is radically different treatment of Emma West and Nikki Giovanni.

    Emma West said this
    RACIST RANT: THE HORRIFIC TRANSCRIPT

    What has this country come to? A load of black people and a load of ****ing Polish. A load of ****ing, yeah... you're all ****ing... do you know what I mean?

    'You ain't English. No, you ain't English either. You ain't English. None of you's ****ing English. Get back to your own ****ing... do you know what sort out your own countries, don't come and do mine.
    'It's nothing now. Britain is nothing now. Britain is **** all. My Britain is **** all.
    'Yeah its fine. I have got a little kid here. Have respect? I have a little boy here. **** you. I dare you, I ****ing dare you.
    'Don't watch my language. Go back to where you come from, go back to ****ing Nicaragua or where ever you come from. Just ****ing go back.
    'I work, I work, I work, this is my British country until we let you lot come over.
    'So what. It is my British country, you ain't British. Are you British? You ain't ****ing British. **** off.
    'You ain't British, you're black. Where do you come from?
    'No, someone's got to talk up for these lot. Look the whole ****ing tram, look at them. Who is black and who is white.
    'There is all black and ****ing burnt people.
    Read more: 'You're not British because you're black': Woman charged with racially aggravated harassment after vile rant aboard tram | Mail Online

    She is to stand trial.

    Nikki Giovanni wrote this
    The True Import Of Present Dialogue, Black vs. Negro (For Peppe, Who Will Ultimately Judge Our Efforts)

    Nigger
    Can you kill
    Can you kill
    Can a nigger kill
    Can a nigger kill a honkie
    Can a nigger kill the Man
    Can you kill nigger
    Huh? nigger can you
    kill
    Do you know how to draw blood
    Can you poison
    Can you stab-a-Jew
    Can you kill huh? nigger
    Can you kill
    Can you run a protestant down with your
    '68 El Dorado
    (that's all they're good for anyway)
    Can you kill
    Can you piss on a blond head
    Can you cut it off
    Can you kill
    A nigger can die
    We ain't got to prove we can die
    We got to prove we can kill
    They sent us to kill
    Japan and Africa
    We policed europe
    Can you kill
    Can you kill a white man
    Can you kill the nigger
    in you
    Can you make your nigger mind
    die
    Can you kill your nigger mind
    And free your black hands to
    strangle
    Can you kill
    Can a nigger kill
    Can you shoot straight and
    Fire for good measure
    Can you splatter their brains in the street
    Can you kill them
    Can you lure them to bed to kill them
    We kill in Viet Nam
    for them
    We kill for UN & NATO & SEATO & US
    And everywhere for all alphabet but
    BLACK
    Can we learn to kill WHITE for BLACK
    Learn to kill niggers
    Learn to be Black men
    Poetry, Fiction, and Drama - Poetry

    She was made a professor of English at Virginia Tech
    Page Title | Department of English | Virginia Tech

    Her most famous student is Seung-Hui Cho also know under the pen name Ismail Axe.

    If the white and black races were treated equally, Emma West would have been offered a professorial position for her masterpiece.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #456  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,250
    Still waiting on answers to the questions posed to you before your mandatory break....

    Are you arguing that African Americans are intellectually and socially inferior to those of white European stock? If not, what is your assertion?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #457  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by simus
    Wall Street swindlers used Ulysses S. Grant in one of their pioneering investment frauds
    According to your link, they used his naive son to lend credence to their false claims that US Grant was corrupt and handing out fat contracts to relatives.

    That's more like what you are doing here - slandering an innocent Grant for ulterior purposes - than using Grant himself.
    Wall Street swindlers were not slandering Grant, they used him for financial gain. I did not slander Grant - I simply pointed out that he was used by the swindlers. If Grant was so naive as you say, could the swindlers have used him before? For example, could they cheat him into taking part in an unjust war?

    By the way, nobody questions Grant's courage and military abilities. The story is different with Lyndon Johnson. He was awarded a Silver Star for a single flight in a B-26 as an observer. The citation says that they were attacked by enemy fighters.

    An American and a Japaneese historians investigated the story, talked to the other members of the crew and concluded that the aircraft was not attacked

    LBJ’s Silver Star: The Mission That Never Was

    BTW, even if citation is correct, LBJ still got a medal for nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #458  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by simus View Post
    Another example of the oppression of the white race is radically different treatment of Emma West and Nikki Giovanni.

    Emma West said this
    .....

    She is to stand trial.

    Nikki Giovanni wrote this
    .....

    She was made a professor of English at Virginia Tech
    Page Title | Department of English | Virginia Tech

    Her most famous student is Seung-Hui Cho also know under the pen name Ismail Axe.

    If the white and black races were treated equally, Emma West would have been offered a professorial position for her masterpiece.
    Not a bad point.

    Seems the equal right to free speech has somehow become a little bit "more equal" for some people than for others, I guess.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #459  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Seems the equal right to free speech has somehow become a little bit "more equal" for some people than for others, I guess.
    Indeed.

    Frequently anthologized, Giovanni’s poetry expresses strong racial pride and respect for family.
    It is clear why she conveys such urgency in expressing the need for Black awareness, unity, solidarity....
    Nikki Giovanni : The Poetry Foundation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #460  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Seems the equal right to free speech has somehow become a little bit "more equal" for some people than for others, I guess
    Indeed it is. I'm 75% white European descent and speak English-- if I listen or watch news or any form of entertainment I can count on hearing and seeing my ethnicity, value system and culture is rather easy to find as well; though I'd say it going to far to sort it into privelage and oppression (because I've seen real oppression that 100x worse than the worst in America), looking at it that way at least makes one think about things most of us, including probably Simius, just take for granted.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #461  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    if I listen or watch news or any form of entertainment I can count on hearing and seeing my ethnicity, value system and culture is rather easy to find as well;
    Is value system and culture part of the genome? Are black people genetically predisposed toward black cultural values?

    A person with black skin has no choice but to have black skin. They can't go into the skin store and buy another one. However, anyone who wants to choose a different value system is free to do so. If I want to convert to Rastifarianism, learn Swahili, and walk around in African robes, nobody is going to stop me (outside of work, anyway.) If a black person wants to join a protestant church (which many belong to anyway), then get a white collar job, move to the suburbs and put up a white picket fence around his lawn, nobody is going to stop him. Actually I'd like to see some black people take up the practice of Odinism. It would get the skin heads all riled up. Might be fun to watch.

    I might as well complain that there's too much pop music on the radio, and not enough classic rock, and then feel oppressed because I like classic rock. Or actually, I guess it would be complaining that there's no enough rap on the radio. Poor rap lovers. I feel for them. My genre is underrepresented as well. ;-(
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #462  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I'm not complain Kojax, but when people are railing against people saying things that aren't politically correct when they are against blacks, which is their right anyhow, yet ignores that practically everything said by their view of things is associated with Europe white culture--than complaints about white oppression are absurd. That's the part Simus just takes for granted and doesn't even realize; it's an astoundingly myopic view of the world.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #463  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Is value system and culture part of the genome? Are black people genetically predisposed toward black cultural values?
    In a word. No.

    I have no idea what 'black cultural values' are supposed to be.

    If you're talking about the ludicrous notion of 'ebonics', that's ....... ludicrous.

    For serious students of black/white cultural influences in America, you can't go past the "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" essay by Thomas Sowell in the book of the same name. (It's also available to download online if you're keen to have a look straight away.)

    Just look at television programs from different countries if you want to see whether 'black' culture is inborn or not. The huge difference I notice between US and UK tv programs is in language. In UK shows, the black and South Asian characters speak with whatever accent prevails in the area/class they were raised in, not some generall 'black' or 'Asian' version of speech. Some are broad Glaswegian or South London working class, others are Eton & Oxford cut glass upper-crust. For the US, it's quite different.

    'Black culture' if it exists at all, is a sub-set of USA culture, not a universal characteristic.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #464  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Just look at television programs from different countries if you want to see whether 'black' culture is inborn or not. The huge difference I notice between US and UK tv programs is in language. In UK shows, the black and South Asian characters speak with whatever accent prevails in the area/class they were raised in, not some generall 'black' or 'Asian' version of speech. Some are broad Glaswegian or South London working class, others are Eton & Oxford cut glass upper-crust. For the US, it's quite different.

    'Black culture' if it exists at all, is a sub-set of USA culture, not a universal characteristic.
    I've noticed that too, whenever I watch BBC programs. It's a lot easier to be color blind when people just talk normal, instead of trying to front some kind of image in their speech, like their whole self identity is tied up in their heritage. (Some people seem to honestly believe that their ancestry/heritage is "who they are".)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm not complain Kojax, but when people are railing against people saying things that aren't politically correct when they are against blacks, which is their right anyhow, yet ignores that practically everything said by their view of things is associated with Europe white culture--than complaints about white oppression are absurd. That's the part Simus just takes for granted and doesn't even realize; it's an astoundingly myopic view of the world.
    If it were limited to that, I would have to agree. However, the example Simus just gave was one of the law prosecuting someone. If there is going to be jail time involved, then what we are discussing is equality/lack of equality in the eyes of the law.

    That's different from being "more equal" or "less equal" in the eyes of public opinion. Public opinion has no obligation or expectation to treat anyone fairly.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #465  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Oh dear. I just noticed that I recommended Thomas Sowell's history of 'black culture' earlier in the thread.

    Some repetition doesn't hurt, I suppose.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #466  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    That's ok. It was worth two mentions. I like the author's strategy in approaching the race vs. culture issue. About time someone in the academic community cut through the bs, and suggests that maybe we could treat the two issues as separate.

    I've always thought it is kind of racist to see someone's skin tone, and automatically assume they had been raised to believe in a certain set of values.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #467  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    185
    Another case of racial opression took an ugly form of canibalism. A black man ate a white man with an IQ of 129. Now this African-American has more brains in his belly, than in his head.

    Victim in face-eating attack had been estranged from family for decades - BostonHerald.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #468  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,250
    Simus, that attack has NO connection to this thread at all. To imply it does is utter bs.

    btw still waiting for an answer........
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #469  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Biological children of the adoptive parents scored even higher.
    May this not be interpreted as indicating a genetic component?
    I think it's a disgrace. It's not that we can raise everyone out of poverty....but there's a lot of things that can be done and are at risk if we aren't careful about our cuts in the next decade or so. A dollar invested in a poor kid probably pays itself many times over in raised IQ, performance, job opportunities and overall benefits to the US economy.
    Your conclusion about spending more money does not follow. The difference could be due to growing up in an atmosphere where academic achievement is valued, rather than the African-American community where it is often discouraged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #470  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Also, with education, it's important to remember you can't get blood from a stone. I had a college professor once in a self-organization class (I'm somewhat unorganized). She brought up the topic of nuclear physics once, only to say outright that she doubted she could ever learn it. This is a person with a PhD in something (I don't know what) teaching a course at a college. Do you think lack of investment in her education is the reason she feels she can't be a nuclear physicist? Some people simply lack scholastic aptitude.

    Whether the correlation between poverty and IQ is primarily due to environment or genetics is a serious question, and one I hope people will approach scientifically. When a study says "high G" tests are being used, that means tests which are found to be less influenced by environment. Naturally we can question whether they accurately screened for G or not in evaluating those tests, but it's kind of being unfair to the people who conducted the study to automatically assume they didn't if we don't know, just because the results invalidate ones' pet theory.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #471  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    This is a person with a PhD in something (I don't know what) teaching a course at a college. Do you think lack of investment in her education is the reason she feels she can't be a nuclear physicist? Some people simply lack scholastic aptitude.
    Or she had good metacognition of what she could and couldn't learn. Again though I'll point out, as other have in this thread, the range of individual intellect is much larger than the average differences between the groups.

    Whether the correlation between poverty and IQ is primarily due to environment or genetics is a serious question, and one I hope people will approach scientifically.
    Of course you're right, but we have already studied it enough to know that whether it's opportunity, culture (as Harold suggest), teacher quality or genes, there is very little difference between capabilities between groups. One thing I'm grateful for is at least we don't have other environmental factors that we also know diminish potential and doesn't get enough attention, such as entire generations in some parts of Africa which went through years of extreme starvation and now suffer irreversible lower IQs as a result.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #472  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Again though I'll point out, as other have in this thread, the range of individual intellect is much larger than the average differences between the groups.
    If that is your perspective, then you should recommend focusing on finding ways to help individuals rise out of poverty, rather than groups, and only those individuals who show great promise.

    The statistical average will always bear out in a large group. It doesn't bear out in a single person. In a large group, all the variations cancel out. There are approximately the same number of people below the average as above it. But a single person doesn't cancel them self out. Any given single person could be very high above the average.

    A little bit of effort spent finding that person and targeting them specifically, could save us a lot of effort beating our heads against the wall trying to improve the others' test scores.

    Whether the correlation between poverty and IQ is primarily due to environment or genetics is a serious question, and one I hope people will approach scientifically.
    Of course you're right, but we have already studied it enough to know that whether it's opportunity, culture (as Harold suggest), teacher quality or genes, there is very little difference between capabilities between groups. One thing I'm grateful for is at least we don't have other environmental factors that we also know diminish potential and doesn't get enough attention, such as entire generations in some parts of Africa which went through years of extreme starvation and now suffer irreversible lower IQs as a result.
    I guess one thing that gets ignored when we try to filter for environment is recognizing that different environmental factors can have different strengths. Starvation is probably a very very strong factor. Parents who do or do not read to their children would likely be a bit weaker. Living in a nice neighborhood would probably be even weaker still.

    Also I'm sure that education funding for a community with low genetic IQ can still help make the difference between the children growing up to work in a moderately skilled, or less skilled profession, even if most of them don't grow up to be rocket scientists. It would be a good idea, though, to aim for the target we intend to reach. Maybe focus on trade schools (which the USA apparently needs more of anyway) instead of actual college.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •