Nobel Prize scientist - Black people are dumb

[Jamougha]

OK, I will restate; it shows that race is not an independent variable with respect to test scores, especially not for diagnostic testing. You can't show racial data on test scoring and argue it's a valid expression of intelligence. We don't know what effect ST has on SAT test scores but it's wrong to assume that there's no effect.

Note the last paragraph on wiki:

[ QUOTE ]
The theory has generated a good deal of intervention work, some of which has boosted the achievement and test scores of low performing minority students.[11][12] Since stereotype threat appears to be one key contributing factors to the gaps in test scores, researchers Geoffrey L. Cohen, Julio Garcia, Nancy Apfel, and Allison Master proposed intervention methods to address the problem in 2006. The intervention, a brief in-class writing assignment, significantly improved the grades of African American students and reduced the racial achievement gap by 40%. These results suggest that the racial achievement gap, a major social concern in the United States, could be ameliorated by the use of timely and targeted social-psychological interventions.[13]

[/ QUOTE ]

Biology may or may not be a factor, I'm not convinced either way. However results like these show we need to take things very, very slowly and carefully when drawing conclusions. I think you are getting ahead of our understanding.

Personal attack deleted by Rduke55. Let's keep it civil.

edit: to be fair you do state that the diff may well not be genetic, I hadn't read down that far in your posts.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I would be willing to agree to a couple of things.

The first is that the IQ difference may not be genetic. I think there's a quite a bit we don't know about inheritance, and I think it's entirely possible that part of the reason for the differential is epigenetic type issues that span generations. I think this may also be the cause of the Flynn effect.

I also think it's possible that Africans have equivalent intelligence potential, but brains that are wired somewhat differently in a behavioral sense, causing a lack of certain intellectual development in childhood. This is one of the reasons this issue is so important, and why it should be researched thoroughly instead of swept under the rug by try hard do gooders. Academia's response to public discussion of these issues is an embarrassment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then, what's the argument about?

[Phil153]

I looked up the study...it's a single study, we don't know how it was done or where it was or who it was done on. And yet this is the greatest reported effect that anyone was able to achieve. You're basing your entire thesis on very shaky grounds:

[ QUOTE ]
The theory has generated a good deal of intervention work, some of which has boosted the achievement and test scores of low performing minority students.

[/ QUOTE ]
Has the same method been tested on low performing white students? Because you'd need that for a control to conclude that this is a race-threat based gap.

Also note this:


Looks good, right? Read the text up the left. These scores are SAT adjusted, meaning that the second bar graph shows that the gap is exactly the same. All this is showing is a negative effect when race is specifically brought up prior to testing, presumably on a test that has no significance to the student (unlike the SATs).

[ QUOTE ]
However results like these show we need to take things very, very slowly and carefully when drawing conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. But I'm not the one being ridiculously dismissive about the various components. People in this thread are falling over themselves to grasp onto anything that shows there is zero true racial difference in intelligence.

If the gap was 5 points, I'd say sure, no big deal, everyone is probably equal. If very poor white countries scored 70 or 80, I'd say sure, it's definitely poverty doing it. If rural Chinese scored 80 while their ethnic counterparts in Japan scored 110, I'd agree with you. If there was evidence of historical cultural achievement and sophistication, relative to Asians, I'd say that sub Saharan Africans are just going through a tough century right now. If any black country on Earth scored 100, I'd say, end of debate. In fact, if there was any kind of evidence of large differentials among the same ethnic group in different cultures and countries, similar to what we see between ethnic groups, I wouldn't even be discussing this. But none of the above are true. Doesn't that make you think?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I would be willing to agree to a couple of things.

The first is that the IQ difference may not be genetic. I think there's a quite a bit we don't know about inheritance, and I think it's entirely possible that part of the reason for the differential is epigenetic type issues that span generations. I think this may also be the cause of the Flynn effect.

I also think it's possible that Africans have equivalent intelligence potential, but brains that are wired somewhat differently in a behavioral sense, causing a lack of certain intellectual development in childhood. This is one of the reasons this issue is so important, and why it should be researched thoroughly instead of swept under the rug by try hard do gooders. Academia's response to public discussion of these issues is an embarrassment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then, what's the argument about?

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument is about how people are dismissing the possibility of a substantial genetic component, sweeping honest research under the rug, and vilifying people who even touch the subject. It's far from concluded that the difference is entirely cultural or nutrition based. I wish it was, because I'd substantially rethink my view on a few things, and what I think social policy should be. I think many others would too. It would be a much happier world and a much brighter future for humanity if low IQs were merely the result of circumstance.

Anyway, I'm probably overstaying my welcome in these threads. I'll let others carry on.

[im a model]

after reading this entire thread:

1) andy, enough already. we realize that watson isnt an exemplary individual. whenever someone tries to discuss something in this thread you talk about how watson is a bigot and his views are biased. we know. everyone has moved on from watson. your continued ad hominem arguments add no value to this thread.

2) this notion that blacks (you could pick nigerians for sprints or kenyans for long distance) are worse swimmers than whites seems totally unfounded. we can say blacks (or at least the high outliers of blacks) are better than whites at track and basketball and football because a huge percentage of whites play all of these sports. you see no blacks swimming in the olypics because almost no black people compete in swimming. most blacks i know dont even know how to swim because its not a big part of their culture and they dont take swim lessons and get into competitive swimming like whites do. its like saying that americans are intrinsically worse at cricket than south africans or indians, which is why americans always get crushed in international competition. anyone can figure out that americans suck at cricket because nobody plays it.

3) the idea that we dont know if blacks run faster on average than whites because maybe the ones who excel and who we see on tv are the product of a high variance distribution seems silly even in theory--and i dont even see why it is pertinent to this discussion of intelligence--but either way, this seems really unlikely. people who have lived in places with a high concentration of blacks can certainly attest to the fact that the average black guy is more athletic than the average white guy.

4) stop citing the study about the one-year-olds as though it were a ligitimate study. it was rejected in peer review. and also, even if it were a worthy study it has very little significance in this debate since we are interested is the advanced cognitive ability of grown-ups, and the high IQ or g of a one-year-old does not by a long shot necessarily imply a high IQ or g through the entire development from infancy to adulthood. the parts or functions of the brain that develop later in life and that are the relevant ones to this debate are not going to be necessarily testable on an infant.

5) there is certainly plenty of debate about the implications of g and its meaning, and it is certainly true that "blacks" and "whites" are umbrella terms describing people of various ethnicities who can be very different from one another, but just because we arent far along in the process and it may be a more complicated issue than it seems initially doesnt mean that devoting time and scientific study to racial differences isnt a worthwhile endeavor. the science does have applications and i think it is always right to discover the truth even if its not something that everyone will like. as for an application, take the public school system: if we knew that blacks scored worse on exams, then when a predominantly black school scored poorly on an exam, we wouldnt incorrectly categorize that school as being poorly run and underfunded and in need of more government aid, whereas with the current prevailing wisdom that everyone is equal, we would.

6) [ QUOTE ]
From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes little sense that race and intelligence are strongly linked. The various races of the world began to diverge about 100,000 years ago in waves of immigration from Africa, long after humans evolved their large brains, which took millions of years of evolution. So the races of the world are a relatively new phenomenon, whereas, human intelligence is much more ancient. (DNA analysis, further, clearly shows that the greatest genetic variation exists, not between races, but within races.)

[/ QUOTE ]

we are always evolving. even if we are "devolving," as some people put it, thats still evolution. 100,000 years isnt enough time for any huge changes in brain structure, but its enough time for disparities to appear between groups. its enough time for some groups to develop superior athletic abilites and different facial structure, and its definitely enough time for a statistically significant difference of a few percentage points of IQ to appear. i think its better to look at facts and come to a conclusion (science) than to try to explain the origin of something with no predictive or applicable value (not science).

7) the issue of the stereotype threat is very unconvincing to me. i acknowledge that it is a real phenomenon, but i dont believe it plays nearly as big a role in accounting for the difference in test scores as the apologists let on. and why does it so heavily affect blacks but not whites to be told that they dont do well on a test? if you hire a black employee will he continually need positive reinforcement so he doesnt succumb to stereotype threat and lose 5% of his productivity? these tests like the LSAT and SAT are taken under real-world conditions (not a lab on a contrived IQ test with purposeful stereotype threat reinforcement), and you can ascribe whatever bias you like to them, but that bias is going to reflect what happens in the real world when that person is taking a test or crunching numbers in an accounting firm. i have more to say on some of the studies and papers on this, but i want to wrap up this post.

8) the big statement in this thread is one that a lot of people have already made: the topic of race is now taboo to a ridiculous and harmful degree. it has come to the point where you cant even suggest performing an objective, scientific study that may come to a conclusion that is not concordant with the government's policy that all races are totally equal in all respects. i hate the idea of purposefully covering up the truth. if people werent so near sighted about this then perhaps we could really start making some progress in terms of domestic policy changes to address areas where blacks are being unfairly treated and there could be honest and open talk about racial matters (crime, poverty, racism, etc.), but instead we choose to just say that anything negative about any race is absolutely unacceptable even if it is potentially true and you are fired and vilified and ostracised if you make any such statements that dont fit into the accepted social outlook. its so sick.

[tame_deuces]

And we who try to hold a balanced perspective, noting that there is no certainty - the room of doubt is too big, the measure is loaded and may not be very valid, the evidence is as of yet small and conflicting theories may also explain the phenomena - are being disregarded as being politically correct dummies afraid to ask a loaded question.

Something which has happened far more in this thread than people being called out for supporting Dawson's view. Believe it or not, many of us who respond in this thread are more than capable of rising above such concerns for a debate's sake - also note that both the two posters (that I know of) that have or soon has degrees in psychology are saying much the same thing - this thing simply isn't certain.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

the deviation in SAT scores that you show is perfectly explained by the Stereotype Threat effect that is discussed elsewhere in the thread.

Testing cannot accurately show differences between races in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. Stereotype threat does nothing to explain why asians outperform whites.

[tame_deuces]

It goes both ways, you have positive stereotyping too. It has been shown in studies that people do better in maths when their Asian heritage is emphasized prior to the test.

[Drag]

I liked "im a model"'s post.

IMO it's very hard to distinguish cultural vs genetic origin in the data. And it seems to be the main issue for discussion.
Even for a black child raised in a white family we can't be sure if his skin color doesn't influence his development, as he can be under a high infulence from his black school friends.

A good way to test such a hypothesis would be to raise several children in the controled condition, bit it obviously is not going to happen. (Disclaimer: I don't advocate such an experiment.)

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked "im a model"'s post.

IMO it's very hard to distinguish cultural vs genetic origin in the data. And it seems to be the main issue for discussion.
Even for a black child raised in a white family we can't be sure if his skin color doesn't influence his development, as he can be under a high infulence from his black school friends.

A good way to test such a hypothesis would be to raise several children in the controled condition, bit it obviously is not going to happen. (Disclaimer: I don't advocate such an experiment.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The final proof/answer will be done in cognitive neuroscience (biological psychology) down the road. Obviously the fellows working on artificial intelligence will also get a say - no need to raise human guinea pigs. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]