Nobel Prize scientist - Black people are dumb

[andyfox]

"it was accepted common knowledge that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites until the mid-20th century. Along comes the civil rights movement and now we must purge this piece of ancient accepted truth because it doesn't fit the new plan for equality."

It was accepted racism. The "science" behind it was crap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

"Sending ill equipped students into valuable university spots simply because they're the 'right' race offends me to the core. Law schools are the worst offenders here."

What are the statistics on exactly how many "ill equipped students" are going to law school? And are they acceped to law school "simply" because they're the right race, or is race one thing that is factored in to the equation? I'm with Colin Powell here. If a few hundred black kids who otherwise would not have the opportunity to go to law school get the chance each year becuase of affirmative action, what great harm is done to the republic?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't a genetic intelligence gap. The intelligence is pretty much exactly the same when measured in v/ young children.

If anything, if you believe in the intelligence measures (g factor etc) and you trust the research that has found differences then the only explanation left is cultural difference and/or inequality in treatment.



[/ QUOTE ]
This is an idiotic statement, and you're not an idiot. Can you tell me why?

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me break it down:

- The intelligence of young children says nothing. Firstly, there is the problem of measuring it accurately - if the difference is in higher cognitive skills (which it appears to be), then it will not appear anywhere near as pronounced at 1 year of age as it will later. Further, the differences might actually occur later in life as brains follow different developmental paths. We know that there are already some developmental differences between black and white females as relates to sexuality (not sure if these are genetic though).

- The only explanation left? Are you basing that entirely on an unpublished study about 1 year old intelligence? This is crazy.

- Even if I accept all the above (which I definitely don't), why couldn't genetically based behavioral differences account for the differences in IQ? Why does it have to be culture and oppression? i.e. White babies might have more encoding for inquisitive or novelty seeking behavior, or they may have naturally lower aggression levels, leading to the development of higher cognitive abilities.

Basically, I find your assertion very wanting.

[andyfox]

"why couldn't genetically based behavioral differences account for the differences in IQ? Why does it have to be culture and oppression?"

Genetics could indeed account for some of the differnce. Certainly culture and oppression could as well. When a man says its genetics, as anyone who has had to work with blacks can see that they're stupid, you have to wonder about the objectivity of his conclusions.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]


Basically, I find your assertion very wanting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree that my statement was bad and based on an uncertain study - I just got a little flared up.

That doesn't detract from the point that intelligence measures may very well be unreliable and not be based on a good definition of intelligence.

[hitch1978]

Deuces, please define intelligence for me?

If the statement was . 'due to genetics, african americen's have a lower g than white americans, who in turn have a lower g than asian americans.' would you object to it?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Deuces, please define intelligence for me?

If the statement was . 'due to genetics, african americen's have a lower g than white americans, who in turn have a lower g than asian americans.' would you object to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because the evidence for this genetic difference is not solid - not to say that the evidence for cultural difference is - so it is definitely a question that need more solid research to answer with any definite statement.

As for a diehard definition of intelligence, I can't give it to you. I will claim that it is more than solving logical puzzles (any definition doing that would have to assume some current very advanced computer programs are more intelligent than we are) - I'd personally would like to include social skills, memory ability and creativity on top of the logical puzzle solving abilities, mathematical ability and linguistic ability currently tested for today.

[Phil153]

Deuces,

Do you think people differ genetically in the following areas?

- Frontal gray matter
- Brain size/neuron count
- Quality of short term memory
- Quality of long term memory
- Speed of processing
- Natural levels of various brain chemicals
- Receptor number/sensitivity

I'm sure there are a heap I missed. Do you think people have significant, genetically based differences in these things? Do you think that they can or do affect the ability to see patterns, come up with creative ideas, understand complex problems, and plan for the future?

I'm not trying to make a point - I'm curious as to what you think.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the statistics on exactly how many "ill equipped students" are going to law school? And are they acceped to law school "simply" because they're the right race, or is race one thing that is factored in to the equation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? The evidence is crystal clear that lots of minority students with relatively low LSAT scores and relatively low undergraduate grades get into elite law schools solely because of their race. For one example, either Kennedy or Rehnquist cite the evidence with respect to Michigan Law School in their dissent in the Grutter case. That evidence showed that they reserved a number of spots for each racial group that correlated quite closely with the % of applicants from that race in the applicant pool.

And there is plenty of evidence that those minority students do terribly: on average, they have much lower grades, drop out at much higher rates, and fail bar exams in much larger percentages. A liberal professor from Stanford had a good summary of the evidence on the performance point. I think the prof's name is Sandberg, but I am too lazy to look it up.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Deuces,

Do you think people differ genetically in the following areas?

- Frontal gray matter
- Brain size/neuron count
- Quality of short term memory
- Quality of long term memory
- Speed of processing
- Natural levels of various brain chemicals
- Receptor number/sensitivity

I'm sure there are a heap I missed. Do you think people have significant, genetically based differences in these things? Do you think that they can or do affect the ability to see patterns, come up with creative ideas, understand complex problems, and plan for the future?

I'm not trying to make a point - I'm curious as to what you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

There certainly also is individual differences, so there is proof for genetic difference in the makeup of the brain. AFAIK, there has been proven observed differences regarding ethnicity, but as you can see from the (at least related) male/female brain debate there is a lot of ambiguity on that subject and what it really means and what you can derive from it.

We also know from developmental psychology that the first 3 years of your life is when your brain is really 'formed' so you can have a lot of cultural blablabla there as well.

And we also know that when using a standardized intelligence measure we note differences between countries that should seemingly share 'ethnicity' quite well, leading some credibility to te hypothesis that what we measure is atleast partially cultural. As usual there is tons of ambiguity and uncertainty.

As for the last part of your question - I believe these ability to be mostly environmental. The brain is a very adaptive organ. If you start learning the guitar, in a few years your brain will have undergone radical changes. I believe the same holds true for logical reasoning, memory ability, creativity and most other stuff usually related to intelligence.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
And we also know that when using a standardized intelligence measure we note differences between countries that should seemingly share 'ethnicity' quite well, leading some credibility to te hypothesis that what we measure is atleast partially cultural. As usual there is tons of ambiguity and uncertainty.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's an excellent argument for an actual effect.

Compare the scores of poor rural Chinese with:

- Poor Africans (African culture)
- Wealthy African Americans (US culture)
- Wealthy Japanese (Japanese culutre)
- Poor South Koreans (Korean culture)
- Second generation Taiwanese Americans (US culture)
- The poorest Eastern European country.

Where do you think the clustering will be? Care to put money on it?

Also, what do you think of the common claim that race differences are more pronounced the more g-loaded the test is?