[Mustang19]

You can have the best-educated black man in the world, and if you ask him to identify his race at the beginning of a test, his score's going to drop away from what you'd expect of a white guy at the same SEI.

Probably not, but your study won't get published unless you come to this conclusion.

[General Battuta]

You can have the best-educated black man in the world, and if you ask him to identify his race at the beginning of a test, his score's going to drop away from what you'd expect of a white guy at the same SEI.

Probably not, but your study won't get published unless you come to this conclusion.

Sorry bro, while file drawer effect is a definite problem I've seen (and helped generate) way too much evidence to think it's at play here.

ED: oh wow, great source you used there

VDARE.com, or VDARE, is a website that advocates reduced immigration, especially illegal immigration, into the United States. Former Forbes editor Peter Brimelow supports the site through his VDARE Foundation. The viewpoints on the site range from immigration reduction to anti-immigration to discussions of race.

The name VDARE and the site's symbol, the head of a white doe, refer to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English immigrants in the New World.[1] Soon after her birth she disappeared with the rest of an early English settlement, and legend says she transformed into a white doe.

VDARE has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

nice

[Mustang19]

You can read the study yourself if you like. In any case it's inappropriate to compare American and European TIMSS scores without taking race into account.

[General Battuta]

I read it four years ago.

[The E]

And it is wrong or not entirely correct because....? You know, elaborate a bit for those of us who are not Battuta.

[General Battuta]

It actually has nothing to do with the point Mustang was trying to make. I think he didn't even bother to read it before linking it, or he didn't understand it. It's not a metareview at all.

Basically it makes the argument that a specific type of analysis (ANCOVA tests) are not appropriate for analyzing ST data because ST theory predicts data which violates the assumptions required to make an ANCOVA work.

My main concern is that the consequences of ST theory render ANCOVA unsuitable, and yet ANCOVA is still used quite often (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2002; Keller, 2002). In light of ST theory’s emphasis on individual differences, it seems unlikely that ST only affects the means of the dependent variable (i.e., effects are identical for each subject within a cell) and leaves the covariance structure unaffected. Therefore, measurement models in which such effects are explicitly modeled (e.g., structural equation modeling) appear more suitable in analyzing ST effects.

I've worked with ST data using much simpler tests and still seen significance.

[Mustang19]

It actually has nothing to do with the point Mustang was trying to make. I think he didn't even bother to read it before linking it, or he didn't understand it. It's not a metareview at all.

Correct on all four points.

What do you think of the APA's conclusion that there is a black-white IQ gap but the cause cannot be determined? If stereotype threat cannot account for the entire difference and blacks from the highest SES score lower than whites from the lowest SES isn't it likely that genetics contributes to the difference? Source: Wikipedia.

[Kosh]

The biggest problem with our education system isn't that it tests too much (thankfully the standardized testing fad is in decline from what I heard), but it doesn't really replace rote learning with anything meaningful. What I mean by that is instead of focusing on reasoning capabilities it leans heavily on post modernist philosophies of equality,in this case that all viewpoints are equal (like whether or not the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed is somehow equal). The unfortunate result of that is that despite having no evidence what so ever in survey after survery huge percentages of americans believe in all kinds of superstitious and psuedoscientific nonsense like ESP, homeopathy, etc while at the same time scientific illiteracy is at shockingly high levels. Why does scientific literacy matter? Because we depend on science and technology for everything now and more and more policy decisions are science based and in a democracy this could have disastrous consequences.

Over the years the skeptics guide to the universe podcast has mentioned education as an issue so I'd like to do a shameless plug for some of these episodes.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=2
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=43
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=52
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=138
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=289
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=273


There's probably more in the archives. Enjoy.

[Bobboau]

this thread has gone in an interesting direction.

[General Battuta]

It actually has nothing to do with the point Mustang was trying to make. I think he didn't even bother to read it before linking it, or he didn't understand it. It's not a metareview at all.

Correct on all four points.

What do you think of the APA's conclusion that there is a black-white IQ gap but the cause cannot be determined? If stereotype threat cannot account for the entire difference and blacks from the highest SES score lower than whites from the lowest SES isn't it likely that genetics contributes to the difference? Source: Wikipedia.

No, it's not, not at all.

Stereotype threat is not specific to black-white either.

[Mustang19]

It actually has nothing to do with the point Mustang was trying to make. I think he didn't even bother to read it before linking it, or he didn't understand it. It's not a metareview at all.

Correct on all four points.

What do you think of the APA's conclusion that there is a black-white IQ gap but the cause cannot be determined? If stereotype threat cannot account for the entire difference and blacks from the highest SES score lower than whites from the lowest SES isn't it likely that genetics contributes to the difference? Source: Wikipedia.

No, it's not, not at all.

Stereotype threat is not specific to black-white either.

What are you saying, that the difference between black-white average IQ is not genetic, or that there is no difference? SES alone can't account for it. What other factors could be responsible besides ST, culture and genetics, and how do you explain (as mentioned in the Rushton link) why East Asians, Inuits and Native Americans score higher under ST than blacks?

[General Battuta]

You just linked a J. Phillip Rushton paper to argue that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.

Rushton has not only contributed to American Renaissance publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the "scholarly" work on racial differences of Henry Garrett, who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the Constitution to blacks on the basis that the "normal" black resembled a European after frontal lobotomy. Informed of Garrett's assertion that blacks were not entitled to equality because their "ancestors were ... savages in an African jungle," Rushton dismissed the observation as quoted "selectively from Garrett's writing", finding nothing opprobrious in such sentiments because the leader of the scientific opposition to civil rights had made other statements about black inferiority that were, according to Rushton, "quite objective in tone and backed by standard social science evidence."

Rushton is a joke.

The second paper you linked is intended to argue that stereotype threat alone does not explain race performance differences, and rather that socieconomic and systemic prejudice explanations should be recruited as well.

I don't think you've adequately established your SES points at all. The reasons that East Asians score higher under ST than blacks should be obvious with the most basic grasp of ST theory - particularly illustrating is what happens when you activate different stereotypes for Asian women.

[Mustang19]

I don't think you've adequately established your SES points at all.

Here, page 272. The difference between black/white cognitive ability is much greater than the difference between high/low SES black IQ. If you believe Jensen then here is evidence of greater correlation between both family and race and IQ than SES and IQ.

The second paper you linked is intended to argue that stereotype threat alone does not explain race performance differences, and rather that socieconomic and systemic prejudice explanations should be recruited as well.

Do we at least agree here on the first half of that sentence?
 

[Luis Dias]

Wait what? Do I see Battuta hand waving peer review'd research with an ad hominem?

 

/Jk

Seriously though, I see that the education that parents and the "near family plus friends" is probably the most important factor at play, and then you can add all the ST schtik and other situations.

There is probably a simple method to disprove this "blacks are dumber than whites 'cause of genetics", which is to test people about their "blackness" in genes and in actual semblance, and then test them for their competence. If we are lucky, there is a discernable scientific difference between "black semblance" and "black genetics" (people may seem whiter than their genes "are", and vice versa), and then one could eventually compare this difference with their results and see if there is a statistical divergence or not.

If there is a divergence, then genetics may be at play here (people with "blacker" genes performing worse than people with "lighter" genes, despite no difference in "looks"). Still this kind of study is prone to be riddled with statistical mistakes and subjectivities.


In the end though, the conversation is actually moot. Because if the trouble is partially indeed due to genetics, then this information in itself is really unproductive, and perhaps counter-productive. If genes do cause issues here, then that means there is "nothing" we can do to destroy the difference between ethnics. So it is of no surprise that racist conservative people will try to prove this theory and diminish the case for any others, while liberal people like Stephen Jay Gould get pretty upset at books like the Bell Curve.

This is an area where politics fuses itself bloodily with science, and pretty much everything you can say that is politically correct is bound to be merely partisan and wishful thinking, while if you try to be true to facts, etc., you may end up in dark racist places.

Due to all this, I propose we all dismiss these claims and their counter-claims as partisanish and unproductive, and let's all try the alternative of finding the best way to teach children, trying to make them, irregardless of their color, the most intelligent, informed, competent and proud members we can. Because all this gene talk doesn't seem to point to a solution to the real problem, now does it?

[General Battuta]

I don't think you've adequately established your SES points at all.

Here, page 272. The difference between black/white cognitive ability is much greater than the difference between high/low SES black IQ. If you believe Jensen then here is evidence of greater correlation between both family and race and IQ than SES and IQ.

The second paper you linked is intended to argue that stereotype threat alone does not explain race performance differences, and rather that socieconomic and systemic prejudice explanations should be recruited as well.

Do we at least agree here on the first half of that sentence?
 

If you genuinely believe what I think you believe, and you think there's strong scientific evidence for it, I'm not sure this is a conversation worth having.

ED: Basically I am highly skeptical of positions that strongly depart from 'we don't know' right now

[Mustang19]

If you genuinely believe what I think you believe, and you think there's strong scientific evidence for it, I'm not sure this is a conversation worth having.

Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.

There is probably a simple method to disprove this "blacks are dumber than whites 'cause of genetics", which is to test people about their "blackness" in genes and in actual semblance, and then test them for their competence. If we are lucky, there is a discernable scientific difference between "black semblance" and "black genetics" (people may seem whiter than their genes "are", and vice versa), and then one could eventually compare this difference with their results and see if there is a statistical divergence or not.

If someone could operationalize those terms, that would work. I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

In the end though, the conversation is actually moot. Because if the trouble is partially indeed due to genetics, then this information in itself is really unproductive, and perhaps counter-productive. If genes do cause issues here, then that means there is "nothing" we can do to destroy the difference between ethnics. So it is of no surprise that racist conservative people will try to prove this theory and diminish the case for any others, while liberal people like Stephen Jay Gould get pretty upset at books like the Bell Curve.

I'm mostly trolling, but this is issue is relevant to the affirmative action debate.

ED: Basically I am highly skeptical of positions that strongly depart from 'we don't know' right now

Okay, that's how the APA feels. But I wouldn't be surprised if my position finds more support as neuroscience advances.

[General Battuta]

Yes, I believe blacks are genetically inferior. Gasp. Let me do CPR, you look like you're having a heart attack. So? Are you going to debate me or post contradictory evidence? Or just say "you're wrong"? I would appreciate it if you at least questioned the legitimacy of the studies I presented some more.

I don't think you need to worry, sneering's not really exertion enough to give me a heart attack

And yeah, I feel like the consensus of the entire scientific community that there's inadequate evidence to determine the genetic basis of intelligence (combined with the well-known biological truth that there is no such identifiable concept as 'race' in the shockingly homogeneous human population) is enough to question the legitimacy of your studies. Your position is clearly based on prejudice supported by selectively drawn 'evidence'.

I don't really see what else there is to say.

[pecenipicek]

The thing is that the US public education system (which, surprise, is dominated by liberals) has so crippled people's ability to think for themselves that you rarely see any rational debate on the internet, especially forums.  Usually arguments on HLP end up devolving into competing arguments from authority, and more emphasis is placed on citing your sources than on articulating a cogent position.

The remedy is to read more.  Read the source texts (not commentaries on them) for both your side and your opponents' side.  Read enough that you can defend your position competently even if you forget half the stuff you read.

(this is not directed at The E; he just happened to post before I did)

Sound points regarding the nature of debate on this forum.

On the topic of the education system, that's personally my first target for reform. The current system does not encourage creative or different thought. You are meant to learn the material to get higher numbers which in our system somehow = better students/people/learners/thinkers. Obviously this is proving to be a fallacy, and what's worse, I think that most every kid in the US feels how BS the education system is, but they feel like they *have* to do it because that's how everyone before them did it. I don't think people realize how new a lot of our educational practices are, relatively speaking.

Smarter, better educated people think more about their choices in life and are more likely to try and do things on their own, rather than listening to what someone says to them.
"Stupider" people are more likely to simply go along with what they're told and believe in happy stuff the goverment/religion of choice/the man/whatever tells them to do.

Guess which cathegory would be preferred by the goverment?

Spoiler:

I'm generalising a LOT here. But that doesnt really invalidate my point much.

[Topgun]

this thread is full of win

[Topgun]

The thing is that the US public education system (which, surprise, is dominated by liberals) has so crippled people's ability to think for themselves that you rarely see any rational debate on the internet, especially forums.  Usually arguments on HLP end up devolving into competing arguments from authority, and more emphasis is placed on citing your sources than on articulating a cogent position.

The remedy is to read more.  Read the source texts (not commentaries on them) for both your side and your opponents' side.  Read enough that you can defend your position competently even if you forget half the stuff you read.

(this is not directed at The E; he just happened to post before I did)

Sound points regarding the nature of debate on this forum.

On the topic of the education system, that's personally my first target for reform. The current system does not encourage creative or different thought. You are meant to learn the material to get higher numbers which in our system somehow = better students/people/learners/thinkers. Obviously this is proving to be a fallacy, and what's worse, I think that most every kid in the US feels how BS the education system is, but they feel like they *have* to do it because that's how everyone before them did it. I don't think people realize how new a lot of our educational practices are, relatively speaking.

Smarter, better educated people think more about their choices in life and are more likely to try and do things on their own, rather than listening to what someone says to them.
"Stupider" people are more likely to simply go along with what they're told and believe in happy stuff the goverment/religion of choice/the man/whatever tells them to do.

Guess which cathegory would be preferred by the goverment?

Spoiler:

I'm generalising a LOT here. But that doesnt really invalidate my point much.

100% this. All of it.