Psychology: The Racist IQ

Methods and means of supporting critical thinking in education
User avatar
Tsukasa Buddha
Regular Poster
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:08 am
Location: NeverLand

Psychology: The Racist IQ

Post by Tsukasa Buddha » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:30 am

My classmates coming out of their psychology class told me about what they were going over the past week, The Racist IQ. Apparently, the teacher has spent a lot of time telling them that the IQ test was racist. Although she provided no evidence from the IQ test itself, she did provide them with a "race adjusted" IQ test (apparently homemade). Naturally, everyone received utterly dismal scores. The test asked about African musicians, as compared to Mozart, and used words such as "pimp." Should this be allowed? Is this argument reliable?
"I don't hold back when I fight idiots."
-Tsukasa

Ron L
Regular Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Ron L » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:22 am

TB,
This showed up in another thread a bit back. I've been looking both in my stack of print and on-line. I'm pretty sure it was in Cerebrum ( http://www.dana.org/books/press/cerebrum/ ) but I haven't found it yet.
There was an article, say summer of '04. Well researched, and the author simply took apart the arguments that IQ 'didn't matter', 'was biased', that people had 'other measurable "IQs"'.
There were references to other forms of measurement; none of them made a lick of predictive difference. The standard IQ tests (for all the failings, and they were shown) still correlates to gains in every quantifiable metric.
Those who claim otherwise typically claim that the metrics don't matter; it's all in how we 'value people'. That's fine, but it really doesn't say much.
Thanks,
Ron L.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Post by corymaylett » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:55 am

I'm not sure the subject can be discussed in a rational way in most forums.

The soft sciences of psychology and sociology have become downright mushy during the last couple of decades due to political correctness and biased instructors who can't differentiate the scientific method from an astrology reading.

I've never been a big fan of IQ tests for a variety of reasons, but the tests do seem to do a reasonably good job of measuring disparate cognitive abilities that, when averaged out, correspond to a common-sense notion of general intelligence. Of course, these tests mostly ignore other abilities like social skills or artistic talents that might also be defined as components of overall intelligence.

Then there's the old argument (of your friend's psychology teacher) about IQ tests being written to test the cultural mainstream. That's certainly a valid concern, but even culturally neutral tests (if there are such things) or tests written specifically for certain groups tend to produce only lesser degrees of the same score discrepancies as the original tests. But then certain groups might be culturally predisposed to do better or worse on these sorts of tests in general, despite how they're written, so who knows.

And this brings us to the big taboo... Make an attempt to throw out the cultural biases, level the testing playing field, and we're still left with rather consistently obtained statistics that lead down a path where nobody but those with a racist agenda are eager to go. If you only look at raw IQ scores from various tests, there does seem to be significant differences in average IQ scores between genetically related groups (or races). Why this is the case is certainly up for study, but a legitimate study has to remain neutral and open the the possibility that these discrepancies reflect actual inherent differences between the groups. An honest study of this sort done by unbiased researchers is nearly impossible given the societal and academic pressures involved.

As a result, we endure without argument the opinions of biased psychology instructors who dispense the dubious, one-sided but socially acceptable conclusions to their students that everyone hopes (including me) are actually the case.

User avatar
d.e.hillshafer
New Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA

Post by d.e.hillshafer » Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:10 am

When I took intro to psychology at the college level (about two years ago) the professor commented on race and IQ. Essentially, the current consensus is that "black people" (that is, the social group that is generally considered black) have lower test-taking self-confidence as a result of racism. IQ tests are difficult and are designed such that no one gets them all correct. Many blacks have been raised to believe that these tests are biased in favor of whites. Many also believe that whites are just smarter. When blacks get to the harder questions, they just assume it's diffiuct because they are either less intelligent or the test is biased. So they don't try as hard to get the correct answer as the other people taking the test. The result is that they skew their own scores downward, confirming the racist beliefs.

This idea was tested as follows. Researchers gave an identical test to three different sets of people. Each set was properly controlled for race. One set was just administered the test. Another was told beforehand that this test was designed for whites. The last set was told beforehand that the test was designed for blacks. The scores of the first group showed the whites did predictably better than blacks. The second group, the whites did substantially better than the blacks. The third group, the blacks did better than the whites. The scores of the last two sets were shifted enough in favor of their respective groups that it fully accounted for the variance shown by the first group.

In other words, if IQ is a racist test, it is because the people taking the test are racist, not the people designing the test.

What that teacher did is, I believe, highly unethical. It is not the job of teachers anywhere to indoctrinate students with original research instead of what is mainstream. Of course, many professors have produced material that is quickly accepted into the mainstream that they subsequently teach, which is fine. That being said, it is a common tactic in psychology to conduct experiments on participants without fully informing them of what the purpose is, or even directly misleading them. This practice is common, because so much in psychology changes when you know and can anticipate what is going on. To make this jive ethically, researchers are obligated to inform the participants of the true nature of the experiment after the experiment is over. Also, there are typically institutional review boards (IRB) that predetermine whether or not an experiment is safe and ethical.

If this teacher produced this test to prove a point, that is quite acceptable. On the other hand, if the teacher actually believes this, then that is as serious a breach of professional conduct as a biology teacher teaching creationisim.

NoMan
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:03 am

Re: Psychology: The Racist IQ

Post by NoMan » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:44 pm

It's already been hit upon, but the problem with I.Q. tests is that they are very predictive. The book, "The Bell-Curve" is about the predictive value of I.Q., virtually none of it is about whether or not I.Q. is genetic or cultural. (The authors state around chapter 5 that it's probably both.) Among other things covered, the book deals states that blacks with higher IQs make more than whites with the same IQ. Most immigrant blacks, such as west Indies blacks, make more money than whites. In Thomas Sowell's "Economics and Politics of Race", he says that "Second-generation immigrants from the West Indies made 15 percent more than the average American." Sowell's own reasons for this disparity are outlined in "Black Rednecks And White Liberals", but I can't comment on it until I read it.

If they are culturally biased, it's because well, we live in American culture. American mainstream culture determines what is intelligence, at least so far as linguistic skills go. Measuring someone's artistic capabilities is nearly impossible. Viewing most museums, I think modern art is crap. Am I less intelligent than people who see a single line drawn across a page as worth $100,000? Testing how well someone knows English, can perform math, and can notice the relations between objects and colors is objectifiable, in that there is a one-and-only true answer to those questions. (Eidictic answer, if you prefer). Questions about art and creativity are in the eye of the beholder.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Psychology: The Racist IQ

Post by corymaylett » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:28 am

NoMan wrote:Questions about art and creativity are in the eye of the beholder.
The appreciation of art can be enhanced through education — even modern, non-representational art. Artistic talent, however, cannot be taught — only developed. The ability to dance, sing, act, draw, play an instrument, etc., are not things easily mastered without starting with that difficult to measure thing called artistic intelligence or, as it's otherwise known, talent. Appreciation of art may be in the eye of the beholder, artistic intelligence is not.

Pulling it back on-topic, artistic talent would be difficult to measure on an IQ test, even though it is largely an intellectual ability (whose practiced expression many people mistakenly assume is the talent).

Psychobabble
New Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Psychobabble » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:41 pm

Disclaimer: Although I have taken course-work on IQ assessment, I do not claim to be an expert in the field.

The typical IQ test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) give three main scores: Verbal, Performance, and Full Score (composite of the two). Within each section, there are subsections. See the link below for more information if you like.

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/in ... ISWISC.html

There are several reasons that someone from a minority group may score low on several subsections such as Information, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. Reasons may include growing up in a poor community, having little focus on reading from parents, understaffed elementary and secondary schools, etc. A standard comprehension question such as, "Explain the meaning of the phrase, 'a rolling stone gathers no moss'," may not make sense to someone who grew up will illiterate parents in the inner city.

A competent psychological assessor would take these factors into account when attempting to assign an IQ score. A standardized WAIS assessment includes an interview component to assess for background issues that may contribute to low scores (as well as alcohol/drug use, traumatic brain injury, etc.).

Another point: All assessors should keep in mind the normative population to which the test can generalize. If, for example, a test was normed using primarily middle-class Caucasians, then the results from a poor African-American would not necessarily be valid. That does NOT mean that a separate test needs to be made, but that the original test needs a new sampling. All current main-stream psychological tests attempt to have a wide representation but it is the assessor responsibility to be aware of limitations.
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.

EinsteinRocks
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:01 am

Post by EinsteinRocks » Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:12 am

Psychobabble wrote:Disclaimer: Although I have taken course-work on IQ assessment, I do not claim to be an expert in the field.

The typical IQ test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) give three main scores: Verbal, Performance, and Full Score (composite of the two). Within each section, there are subsections. See the link below for more information if you like.

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/in ... ISWISC.html

There are several reasons that someone from a minority group may score low on several subsections such as Information, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. Reasons may include growing up in a poor community, having little focus on reading from parents, understaffed elementary and secondary schools, etc. A standard comprehension question such as, "Explain the meaning of the phrase, 'a rolling stone gathers no moss'," may not make sense to someone who grew up will illiterate parents in the inner city.

A competent psychological assessor would take these factors into account when attempting to assign an IQ score. A standardized WAIS assessment includes an interview component to assess for background issues that may contribute to low scores (as well as alcohol/drug use, traumatic brain injury, etc.).

Another point: All assessors should keep in mind the normative population to which the test can generalize. If, for example, a test was normed using primarily middle-class Caucasians, then the results from a poor African-American would not necessarily be valid. That does NOT mean that a separate test needs to be made, but that the original test needs a new sampling. All current main-stream psychological tests attempt to have a wide representation but it is the assessor responsibility to be aware of limitations.
From a tactical point of view Psycho hit the nail on the head. Job well done.

By definition, an IQ test measures intelligence. But I argue it cannot measure the totality of intelligence. It can only measure the intelligence based on the questions asked.

The most complex structure in the known universe is the human brain. An IQ test can merely measure the electrical and storage performance of the brain on an embarrassing myopic set of parameters.

I postulate that all mature brains are statistically equal in totality. Just because I can multiply 4 numbers by 4 numbers in my head, should have no higher numeric value, than a great orator, that can change the world, and effect tangible results simply by the talent of great speech. Let's say the orator cannot add 78+16 is their head successfully, who actually accomplished more for mankind (actual affect on universe)? The orator.

Point is, IQ testing is clearly biased on a limited, socially accepted set of performance based rules, that apply to succeeding in the culture. How else can one explain an autistic person that clearly would score less than 50, being able to break the WWII German encryption algorithms, in less than a minute, without pen and pad.

If you found out that Beethoven could not do fractional addition, would he be less of a genius?

NO

User avatar
flyer1
Regular Poster
Posts: 857
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:39 am

Post by flyer1 » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:15 am

If they ever sort out autistic savants, the world will be a better place.

The basic problem with IQ tests is that they assume everyone has had the same experiences. I actually scored poorly on the SATs, because having been in special gifted classes, I missed a lot of the books the SAT references. I am not spatially oriented, so I do badly on tests, such as the Mensa test, that focus a lot on spatial references.

This doesn't mean they're biased toward "white" people, just educated people.
"Have you seen my people, magician?" said the unicorn. "They are wild and sea-white, like me."
Schmendrick shook his head. "I have never seen anyone like you, not while I was awake."

User avatar
Churchill
Poster
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:05 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Post by Churchill » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:24 pm

Thylacine:
Then there's the old argument (of your friend's psychology teacher) about IQ tests being written to test the cultural mainstream. That's certainly a valid concern, but even culturally neutral tests (if there are such things) or tests written specifically for certain groups tend to produce only lesser degrees of the same score discrepancies as the original tests. But then certain groups might be culturally predisposed to do better or worse on these sorts of tests in general, despite how they're written, so who knows.

And this brings us to the big taboo... Make an attempt to throw out the cultural biases, level the testing playing field, and we're still left with rather consistently obtained statistics that lead down a path where nobody but those with a racist agenda are eager to go. If you only look at raw IQ scores from various tests, there does seem to be significant differences in average IQ scores between genetically related groups (or races). Why this is the case is certainly up for study, but a legitimate study has to remain neutral and open the the possibility that these discrepancies reflect actual inherent differences between the groups. An honest study of this sort done by unbiased researchers is nearly impossible given the societal and academic pressures involved.
Nicely said. But as for "nobody but those with a racist agenda are eager to go" there, I would agree that it is true for many, but not for all. Let me submit the book called Race: The Reality of Human Differences by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele. I think this was an honest attempt to go there without a racist agenda. The reality is that most scientists probably believe that even slight human variation can account for a difference in cognitive/physical ability, but as you point out, it might be tough to say this out load and keep your job at the same time in the current climate.

Culture and learned behavior certainly will have a large impact, but to completely discount our inherent traits is dishonest. Slight physical differences in animals (including ourselves) translate to variances in abilities, so why should this not hold for cognitive abilities?

I think it is the Scientist's and Skeptic's job to investigate these claims, but I can understand that some would use this information to justify their racist attitudes and disparage people, unfortunately.

If you look at the reviews of this book an amazon, they are very polarizing; either the reader really agrees with the premise of the book, or he is adamantly against it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/custom ... 55&s=books

EinsteinRocks
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:01 am

Post by EinsteinRocks » Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:46 am

Churchill wrote:Thylacine:
Then there's the old argument (of your friend's psychology teacher) about IQ tests being written to test the cultural mainstream. That's certainly a valid concern, but even culturally neutral tests (if there are such things) or tests written specifically for certain groups tend to produce only lesser degrees of the same score discrepancies as the original tests. But then certain groups might be culturally predisposed to do better or worse on these sorts of tests in general, despite how they're written, so who knows.

And this brings us to the big taboo... Make an attempt to throw out the cultural biases, level the testing playing field, and we're still left with rather consistently obtained statistics that lead down a path where nobody but those with a racist agenda are eager to go. If you only look at raw IQ scores from various tests, there does seem to be significant differences in average IQ scores between genetically related groups (or races). Why this is the case is certainly up for study, but a legitimate study has to remain neutral and open the the possibility that these discrepancies reflect actual inherent differences between the groups. An honest study of this sort done by unbiased researchers is nearly impossible given the societal and academic pressures involved.
Nicely said. But as for "nobody but those with a racist agenda are eager to go" there, I would agree that it is true for many, but not for all. Let me submit the book called Race: The Reality of Human Differences by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele. I think this was an honest attempt to go there without a racist agenda. The reality is that most scientists probably believe that even slight human variation can account for a difference in cognitive/physical ability, but as you point out, it might be tough to say this out load and keep your job at the same time in the current climate.

Culture and learned behavior certainly will have a large impact, but to completely discount our inherent traits is dishonest. Slight physical differences in animals (including ourselves) translate to variances in abilities, so why should this not hold for cognitive abilities?

I think it is the Scientist's and Skeptic's job to investigate these claims, but I can understand that some would use this information to justify their racist attitudes and disparage people, unfortunately.

If you look at the reviews of this book an amazon, they are very polarizing; either the reader really agrees with the premise of the book, or he is adamantly against it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/custom ... 55&s=books
Here is my two cents. I will probably be first to agree that intelligence may be just as genetically inheritable as big ears. No argument there.

BUT

I would bet real money, that cross cultural, multi-national and multi-ethnic research would show that all people are statistically equal in intelligence. Regardless of skin color.

I am sure any stereotypical associations with intelligence, could easily be reconciled with observable, testable environmental conditions. Such as Asians appear to excel at math, same as people in India. One can easily find simple, practical answers in the way both of those societies address the importance education and their emphasis on math skills at all grade levels.

In the inner cities of America, in the ghettos, and also in most of Africa, math is not emphasized, usually reading, writing and then survival skills, in math’s place. One could easily make a race or color connection, and may be able to show statistics that truly do not disagree with their perspective, I understand that.

The United States now ranks 27th out of 40 developed counties in math. Sinking year by year. You could argue race shifts in U.S. population could cause this, any maybe, your right. But, you cannot reconcile race shifts in the other country’s gains (not a bell curve relational shift, but raw score gains).

At the same time, I think that any connection made, should still have a cause, since the observation, is clearly a symptom of some cause. So either way you initially chose to interpret the statistical observation, when you look for a cause, it seems far more practical and reasonable to address the obvious connections with education and environment, verses hypothesizing about complex inherited genetic influences, that may never be provable.

I say that in part, since I have seen recent data on research that implies that Mendel's Law may be in real trouble, statistically. Advanced technology gains in genetics may start unraveling our centuries old beliefs of inherited traits that made Mendel’s observations, seems pretty straightforward. Turns out we may have discovered there are yet smaller, currently undetectable "traits" that mysterious can skip many generations from a DNA standpoint, and reappear via some sort of gene memory that has no mathematically detectable algorithm. In short, they think there in something smaller than the 4 base letters, adding yet another massive variable into an already barely comprehendible science with complexities already into the trillions. (decoding polygenetic sequences). The new data suggest an invisible storage and transmission medium that may be a subset of RNA. We assume (hope) it is chemically based (like DNA) but the fear is, it may not be. (Genetic research on the Watercress Lily and the “Hot Dog” gene aberration).

That's what I mean by provable, our genes seem to be getting more, not less problematic from a comprehension point of view.

My thesis would conclude, if you took any random 50 kids (small) out of poverty stricken Africa, and sent them to the best schools in America or Europe, nurtured and supported them, you would get 42 College grads with a GPA of better than 3.2

Maybe I am wrong, who knows?

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Post by corymaylett » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:37 am

EinsteinRocks wrote:My thesis would conclude, if you took any random 50 kids (small) out of poverty stricken Africa, and sent them to the best schools in America or Europe, nurtured and supported them, you would get 42 College grads with a GPA of better than 3.2

Maybe I am wrong, who knows?
Perhaps you should apply for a grant. :wink:

Seriously though, you could be wrong, but I certainly hope that you aren't. Entire racial or ethnic groups limited by genetically determined intellectual inferiorities would likely mean permanent societal underclasses. That's not a plesant prospect — from any point of view.

User avatar
UseYourNoodle
Regular Poster
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: reality

Post by UseYourNoodle » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:41 pm

I have never taken an IQ test that asks much about pop culture so I don't find the teachers argument to convincing at all. What is more compelling to me is that not a single task requiring intelligence where both blacks and whites perform equally on can be found.
They have IQ tests that take social situations out of the equation and are given to three year olds. The results mimic the same point deviation between the races as previous IQ tests have shown.
A review of the best book written on racial differences in IQ is by Michael Levin. Read this article, it is a bit long but very revealing - http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lev.htm
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money so long as you have got it. EDWIN WAY TEALE

User avatar
Capthorne
Regular Poster
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Post by Capthorne » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:09 pm

I administered psychometric tests in England some years ago. We were not trying to measure "intelligence" but to identify persons with particular aptitudes appropriate for the work that needed to be done.

Our candidates were a random mixture of white "native" Britons, blacks from the West Indies (mostly 2nd generation immigrants), Indo-Asians from Africa and Indo-Asians from India, Pakistan and Gujerat, and a few Sino-Asians from southern China and HongKong.

We weren't interested in race or colour, only in aptitude so we had no reason to record any other outcome. However, as the manager responsible for running the management training I observed that there was no noticeable difference between persons of differing racial origins and that they all got on very well together. We ended up with very approximately 33% each of "local whites", "blacks" and "browns".
I am a skeptic because God made me so. - me
"I believe everything and I believe nothing" - Peter Sellers in "The pink Panther"
"Imagination rules the World" - Napoleon Buonapart

EinsteinRocks
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:01 am

Post by EinsteinRocks » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:01 pm

Capthorne wrote:I administered psychometric tests in England some years ago. We were not trying to measure "intelligence" but to identify persons with particular aptitudes appropriate for the work that needed to be done.

Our candidates were a random mixture of white "native" Britons, blacks from the West Indies (mostly 2nd generation immigrants), Indo-Asians from Africa and Indo-Asians from India, Pakistan and Gujerat, and a few Sino-Asians from southern China and HongKong.

We weren't interested in race or colour, only in aptitude so we had no reason to record any other outcome. However, as the manager responsible for running the management training I observed that there was no noticeable difference between persons of differing racial origins and that they all got on very well together. We ended up with very approximately 33% each of "local whites", "blacks" and "browns".
Thank you for your input.

EinsteinRocks
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:01 am

Post by EinsteinRocks » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:05 pm

UseYourNoodle wrote:I have never taken an IQ test that asks much about pop culture so I don't find the teachers argument to convincing at all. What is more compelling to me is that not a single task requiring intelligence where both blacks and whites perform equally on can be found.
They have IQ tests that take social situations out of the equation and are given to three year olds. The results mimic the same point deviation between the races as previous IQ tests have shown.
A review of the best book written on racial differences in IQ is by Michael Levin. Read this article, it is a bit long but very revealing - http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lev.htm
I am not sure if you read the part in my previous post when I claimed EDUCATION was the key. Not social situations, country of origin, RACE, etc. Race would be the statistical byproduct, not the cause. You seem to be stuck on symptom, we are trying to get past that.

I want to see the "before" and "after" of the IQ test that claims to have removed "social situations". I'd pay real money for that gem.

WOW. I just went a read that link you posted. Very racist indeed. Hitler and this guy are of like mind. Superior White Race ring any bells?

My friend, if you have any data showing kids going to the same class, living in the same home, being of different race, scoring any differently, I want to see it. Your argument is just a racist position taking advantage of the glaringly apparent differences of education among the races (societies, etc), and thinly veiling it science to take the Aryan Race is Supreme proposal, and dehumanize it. Less personal.

I am not stupid enough to buy that. If I did, I would read Mein Kampf to put me to sleep each night.

User avatar
UseYourNoodle
Regular Poster
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: reality

Post by UseYourNoodle » Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:18 am

EinsteinRocks wrote:
UseYourNoodle wrote:I have never taken an IQ test that asks much about pop culture so I don't find the teachers argument to convincing at all. What is more compelling to me is that not a single task requiring intelligence where both blacks and whites perform equally on can be found.
They have IQ tests that take social situations out of the equation and are given to three year olds. The results mimic the same point deviation between the races as previous IQ tests have shown.
A review of the best book written on racial differences in IQ is by Michael Levin. Read this article, it is a bit long but very revealing - http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lev.htm
I am not sure if you read the part in my previous post when I claimed EDUCATION was the key. Not social situations, country of origin, RACE, etc. Race would be the statistical byproduct, not the cause. You seem to be stuck on symptom, we are trying to get past that.

I want to see the "before" and "after" of the IQ test that claims to have removed "social situations". I'd pay real money for that gem.

WOW. I just went a read that link you posted. Very racist indeed. Hitler and this guy are of like mind. Superior White Race ring any bells?

My friend, if you have any data showing kids going to the same class, living in the same home, being of different race, scoring any differently, I want to see it. Your argument is just a racist position taking advantage of the glaringly apparent differences of education among the races (societies, etc), and thinly veiling it science to take the Aryan Race is Supreme proposal, and dehumanize it. Less personal.

I am not stupid enough to buy that. If I did, I would read Mein Kampf to put me to sleep each night.
Actually, at this point in time, with so much evidence supporting a genetic link to intelligence, providing the proof that the races are in fact the same in intelligence rests with people like you that hold your viewpoint. Call Levin's book racist if you want but to throw Hitler in there as if he advocates harming anybody either makes you look like a fool or proves you didn't read the article. The truth may be unpleasant to you but that is still no excuse to deny it or try to shame it out of existence by equating it to Hitler.
Can you explain why programs like Headstart with billions in funds spent have been a complete failure in raising the IQ of black children? Or why blacks who claim racial bias in testing can't produce an IQ test that they can perform equally as well on? Or why Sub-Saharan blacks never developed a written language? Or why violent behavior of black males is found at about ten times the rate of whites in virtually every high density black population? Is it also racist to you to think blacks overall are more violent? If you believe that 12 percent of the US population (blacks) comitting half the murders in this country is due to discrimination by whites then you are the racist here. If you read Levin's book and see all the data he provides to support his conclusions I doubt you would have the same opinions about genetics being related to behaviors. To date, nobody has done anything to refute his work. There has been a lot of whining about his book but nothing of substance to refute it. He knew how some people would take his opinions so he has gone to great lengths to document the data he used in support of them.

I guess Louis Leakey is a racist too.
"I would be inclined to suggest that however great may be the physical differences between such races...the mental and psychological differences are greater." Louis Leakey
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money so long as you have got it. EDWIN WAY TEALE

Ron L
Regular Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Ron L » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:07 am

Defining 'races' is not easy, so there's a built-in problem. 'Cultures' are at least as dificult to define and to quantify.
I'm 'white' and of 'German' culture. On an IQ test, there's a good chance I could out-score a specific 'asian'/'Chinese', and a good chance both of us could be out-scored by a specific 'negroid'/'Kenyan'.
Statistically, there is a validity, but it presumes agreement on groupings. Individually, who cares?
Thanks,
Ron L.

User avatar
flyer1
Regular Poster
Posts: 857
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:39 am

Post by flyer1 » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:56 am

Can you explain why programs like Headstart with billions in funds spent have been a complete failure in raising the IQ of black children? Or why blacks who claim racial bias in testing can't produce an IQ test that they can perform equally as well on? Or why Sub-Saharan blacks never developed a written language? Or why violent behavior of black males is found at about ten times the rate of whites in virtually every high density black population? Is it also racist to you to think blacks overall are more violent? If you believe that 12 percent of the US population (blacks) comitting half the murders in this country is due to discrimination by whites then you are the racist here.
Head Start's 2005 appropriation: $6.7 billion. Average expenditure per state, $200 million
Head Start's enrollment: 31% Hispanic, 31% black, 26% white, remainder Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, and multiracial.
--Source, Head Start's website, budget page

Why Sub-saharan blacks never devised a written language: They did not need to, it was imported from Egypt and later Arabia. Written languages aka alphabets, were independantly derived only three times in human history.
--Source, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond

Why violence is so common in black populations: Violence is a by-product of poverty, unemployment, poor opportunity, and substance abuse. These conditions are common in inner cities, where most blacks live. In poor rural areas, where most poor whites live, as much violence is committed by whites as by blacks.
A review of the 2004 arrest data by race indicated that 70.8 percent of arrestees were white, 26.8 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were of other races (American Indian or Alaskan Native and Asian or Pacific Islander). Of all arrestees for violent crimes, 60.9 percent were white, 36.9 percent were black, and the remainder were of other races. Of all arrestees for property crimes, 69.3 percent were white, 28.2 percent were black and the remaining 2.5 percent were of other races. Whites were most commonly arrested for driving under the influence (893,212 arrests) and drug abuse violations (821,047 arrests). Blacks were most frequently arrested for drug abuse violations (406,890 arrests) and simple assaults (288,286 arrests). (See Table 43.)
--source: FBI Uniform Crime Report website, 2004 data

Blacks committing more murders:
Between 1976-2002
Whites (including Hispanics) committed 45% of all murders
Blacks committed 52% of all murders
All other races comitted about 2% of all murders
However, blacks are 6 times more likely to become murder victims than white.
Most whites are murdered by whites.
Most blacks are murdered by blacks.
--source: FBI Uniform Crime Report website

The FBI Uniform Crime Report only covers reported and cleared crimes. Homicide has a clearance rate of about 65%, the highest of all cleared crimes.

Get your statistics straight.
"Have you seen my people, magician?" said the unicorn. "They are wild and sea-white, like me."
Schmendrick shook his head. "I have never seen anyone like you, not while I was awake."

User avatar
UseYourNoodle
Regular Poster
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: reality

Post by UseYourNoodle » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:45 pm

flyer1 wrote:
Can you explain why programs like Headstart with billions in funds spent have been a complete failure in raising the IQ of black children? Or why blacks who claim racial bias in testing can't produce an IQ test that they can perform equally as well on? Or why Sub-Saharan blacks never developed a written language? Or why violent behavior of black males is found at about ten times the rate of whites in virtually every high density black population? Is it also racist to you to think blacks overall are more violent? If you believe that 12 percent of the US population (blacks) comitting half the murders in this country is due to discrimination by whites then you are the racist here.
Head Start's 2005 appropriation: $6.7 billion. Average expenditure per state, $200 million
Head Start's enrollment: 31% Hispanic, 31% black, 26% white, remainder Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, and multiracial.
--Source, Head Start's website, budget page

Why Sub-saharan blacks never devised a written language: They did not need to, it was imported from Egypt and later Arabia. Written languages aka alphabets, were independantly derived only three times in human history.
--Source, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond

Why violence is so common in black populations: Violence is a by-product of poverty, unemployment, poor opportunity, and substance abuse. These conditions are common in inner cities, where most blacks live. In poor rural areas, where most poor whites live, as much violence is committed by whites as by blacks.
A review of the 2004 arrest data by race indicated that 70.8 percent of arrestees were white, 26.8 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were of other races (American Indian or Alaskan Native and Asian or Pacific Islander). Of all arrestees for violent crimes, 60.9 percent were white, 36.9 percent were black, and the remainder were of other races. Of all arrestees for property crimes, 69.3 percent were white, 28.2 percent were black and the remaining 2.5 percent were of other races. Whites were most commonly arrested for driving under the influence (893,212 arrests) and drug abuse violations (821,047 arrests). Blacks were most frequently arrested for drug abuse violations (406,890 arrests) and simple assaults (288,286 arrests). (See Table 43.)
--source: FBI Uniform Crime Report website, 2004 data

Blacks committing more murders:
Between 1976-2002
Whites (including Hispanics) committed 45% of all murders
Blacks committed 52% of all murders
All other races comitted about 2% of all murders
However, blacks are 6 times more likely to become murder victims than white.
Most whites are murdered by whites.
Most blacks are murdered by blacks.
--source: FBI Uniform Crime Report website

The FBI Uniform Crime Report only covers reported and cleared crimes. Homicide has a clearance rate of about 65%, the highest of all cleared crimes.

Get your statistics straight.
You fail to explain why HeadStart has been a failure in raising IQ for black youths. You also provided information that blacks committed 52 percent of the murders between 1976-2002. Quite a feat for a group that is 12 percent of the population. I don't know where you live but the face of violent crime where I live is predominately black. It is unusual for a day to go by without a shooting or killing in Hartford. Don't you also find it unusual that the FBI statistics you provide lump Hispanics in with whites when it comes to perpetrators of crimes but separates them out when it comes to victims thus making whites look worse? What do you think could be the motive for doing that???
You also say violence is a by-product of poverty. I say you got it backwards. With violent predatory criminals no businesses can thrive. Urban renewal is a waste of money because nobody will come to the theatre or restaurant for example under those conditions. The violence, in addition to making business next to impossible, eats up a disproportionate amount of taxes on law enforcement which also causes property taxes to be very high in urban areas thus holding down the property values of the minorities that own homes there so they never enjoy the same rise in home equity as those in the suburbs. Violence is the root of poverty in urban areas not the by-product of it. Unemployment is a problem but is due more to lack of education than anything else. Substance abuse is also a problem but an avoidable one for those who have the ability to understand the consequences.
When IQ is looked at in economic terms, those at the poverty level no matter what their race average around 80. All racial discrepancies disappear. The same is true at the top of the economic ladder. The blacks there have a much higher IQ on average consistent with the rest of their economic group, there just happens to be fewer of them. What a coincidence. Isn't it also a coincidence that Jews outperform other whites at the same rate that whites outperform blacks and the economic differences between Jews and other whites is the same ratio as between whites and blacks? Can you explain how the Jews always end up on top doing better than everybody else even while being a minority group if it is not due to their intelligence? Social outcomes correlate perfectly with IQ. Can you explain why so many important discoveries in science and medicine are made by Jews or why they hold a hugely disproportionate amount of Nobel Prize awards in the sciences? Is it just coincidence to you that they have the highest on average IQ? Is it also a coincidence that not one of the 1500 discoveries listed in Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery (1989) is by a black person?
Go into any black urban setting and see who is running many of the small businesses there. You will find Pakistanis, Indians and Koreans running the small groceries and liquor stores. Many are first generation immigrants that still have difficulties with the english language. If these people can find the means to run small businesses in the black community why don't blacks do it? Do you remember the riots in LA after Rodney King was beaten? The blacks burned all the Korean businesses in their community. Why? The cops weren't Korean.
Nature has no concern at all with fairness. Humans evolving in different environments have evolved different behavioral traits suited to those environments. Would the world be better if the races actually were equal? Absolutely, but that is not reality. When you have black mayors, school administrators and teachers combined with the same funding provided for those students as in the suburbs what else should be done? In Hartford CT for example, they actually spend more per pupil than in the surrounding suburbs yet the students do far worse in Hartford. Many parents in Hartford want to send their kids to the surrounding suburbs to go to school and the courts have even ordered this to take place. What does this imply, that blacks can only learn when they are among a white majority in the classroom? The finest schools in the world will have little effect on students without a true desire to learn.
Every person deserves equal opportunity but equal opportunity unfortunately does not create equality.
Why do blacks hold a hugely disproportionate number of the very lucrative multi-million dollar NBA positions? Is it a lack of interest by whites to compete for these million dollar salaries or is it bias against whites (reverse discrimination) or are blacks simply at an advantage?
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money so long as you have got it. EDWIN WAY TEALE

User avatar
rrichar911
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4853
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Texas, God's country USA

Post by rrichar911 » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:20 am

Is this argument reliable?

No. Not in the least.

You might as well say that a person who graduates with a 4.0 cannot be considered any smarter than the guy who flunked out the first semester.
What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
rrichar911
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4853
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Texas, God's country USA

Post by rrichar911 » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:23 am

UseYourNoodle

You are right on. Poverty does not create crime, crime creates poverty. One is successful in direct porportion to the degree of psychological development.

I'm not a country western fan, but:

50% of country western fans don't drop out of high school
70% don't have baby as single moms
42% are not on welfare
70% of couintry and western men ages 18 to 26, are not unemployeed
There are not more of that age group in prision than have a job.
etc
But those are approx stats for blacks.

Forest Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.

In fact the average educational level in small town USA is greater than in large towns, and small town USA is where the country and western fans live.

The question is why are those miserable stats a fact in the black community, he asks as he spits his chewin' tobaccie.

I can't help but notice that in the 50's when racism was the law, and most people were racist, that the stats in the black community were no where as miserable as they are today. There are only so many variables to consider, and racism don't explain it.

and if poverty is the creator of crime, then the WW2 generation should have been among Americas all time criminal generation, for they went through the great depression. Truth is, they were among the most honest of generations.

Crime creates poverty, and one of the beliefs required to be a criminal of the monitary sort is a disreguard for the rights of others to their property. i.e. respect for private ownership. That value system so prevelent in America of the past, is all but vanished into thin air. The primarely government lead change of culture from one of respect for ones neighbors rights and property to one of the dependent child , who demands inordinate compensation for a non existent talent, and thus an inner knwledge if inferiority, which is rebeled against fully accounts for the decline in the black community.

For it is imposable to live up to ones potential, and thus have deep self knowledge of worth, while simultaniously accepting the status and belief system of a dependent child. The violence is the result of rebelion against an inner knowledge that one has not lived up to their potential. You can't accept dependence and live up to the potential of ones real self simultaniously. When self value is not obtained through productive means, then it is often sought through unproductive means. Power is in a gun, rather than a job and family.

This is not rocket science, its very simple.

The welfare state has destroyed large portions of the balck community. It will continue for it is not politically viable in todays climate to return to sanity.

To say that standardised test discriminate, is to perptuate that which caused the problem. The victom mentality. It is the equivalent of saying I can't do what a white person can do on a test, because I'm black. Believe that, and you have accepted inferiority, i.e. dependence. No different than I can't make it with out taking money that someone esle has earned by producing.

Destroy the inner self, and the person has been destroyed. The inner self is destroyed because it believes things which are not true. i.e. I can't do as well on this test because it's a white mans test, I need welfare because _____., = I'm no good. I'm no good = all the stats listed above.
What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
UseYourNoodle
Regular Poster
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: reality

Post by UseYourNoodle » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:58 pm

rrichar911 wrote: I can't help but notice that in the 50's when racism was the law, and most people were racist, that the stats in the black community were no where as miserable as they are today. There are only so many variables to consider, and racism don't explain it.
It seems that as conditions for both blacks and whites have become more alike that the behavioral differences between the races have become more obvious. White women have the ability to bear illegitimate children at the black rate and raise them on welfare until society went bankrupt but they haven't done this. Why not if the races are just alike? There are so many behavioral differences between the races in addition to intelligence that I find it strange that people can believe otherwise.
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money so long as you have got it. EDWIN WAY TEALE