posted
"43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared to 42.5 of Asian Americans"
The difference is statistically insignificant and the umbrella of "Asian Americans" includes are large range of Asian peoples, many of whom have lower rather than higher IQ averages compared to Whites such as Vietnamese, Laotian, Philipino, and Cambodian Americans. Many of these peoples come as domestic servants, not high skilled or highly educated folks so their lower IQ will drag down the average of all encompassed under "Asian American".
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: "43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared to 42.5 of Asian Americans"
The difference is statistically insignificant and the umbrella of "Asian Americans" includes are large range of Asian peoples, many of whom have lower rather than higher IQ averages compared to Whites such as Vietnamese, Laotian, Philipino, and Cambodian Americans. Many of these peoples come as domestic servants, not high skilled or highly educated folks so their lower IQ will drag down the average of all encompassed under "Asian American".
Cop-out, since it weasels around the implication of your bunk premise. 43.8 percent of African immigrants compared to 42.5 percent for Asians is indeed relatively insignificant, but 43.8 percent of African immigrants compared to 28.9 percent of European [White] immigrants is extremely significant. The "umbrella" of African individuals clearly out perform the "umbrella" of Europeans while these supposed domestic servants from Asia attain the same results. The outliners are the Europeans, who perform lower than expected under your cherished predictive models pertaining to IQ.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: "43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared to 42.5 of Asian Americans"
The difference is statistically insignificant and the umbrella of "Asian Americans" includes are large range of Asian peoples, many of whom have lower rather than higher IQ averages compared to Whites such as Vietnamese, Laotian, Philipino, and Cambodian Americans. Many of these peoples come as domestic servants, not high skilled or highly educated folks so their lower IQ will drag down the average of all encompassed under "Asian American".
Cop-out, since it weasels around the implication of your bunk premise. 43.8 percent of African immigrants compared to 42.5 percent for Asians is indeed relatively insignificant, but 43.8 percent of African immigrants compared to 28.9 percent of European [White] immigrants is extremely significant. The "umbrella" of African individuals clearly out perform the "umbrella" of Europeans while these supposed domestic servants from Asia attain the same results. The outliners are the Europeans, who perform lower than expected under your cherished predictive models pertaining to IQ.
The Asian group includes Chinese, Korean, and Japanese which is what raises the level of higher education attendees.
The European immigrants are from Russia and Canada for goodness sakes. Canada? Yes, immigrants from Canada are your ordinary Canadians. You're not going to see only high IQ people emigrating out of Canada to the US. You're going to get many commoners, just like Mexican (legal and illegal) influx into US.
They should really break down the stats further to see which Asian groups are represented and which "White" groups are represented instead of clumping them all together.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Oh yes, I remember you posting this before and commenting on the arbitrary nature of the rejection. The criticism was based mainly on the exclusion of a few low quality tests and what they claim was a lack of emphasis on g, though even admit that given their inclusions, gains are still made by up to over 3 points, while conveniently ignoring Dickens and Flynn directly addressing actual gains in g in tandem with IQ. It is an agenda easily exposed by their blatant obsfucation of the data. Here's a more recent follow up/response from Dickens and Flynn.
quote:Common ground and differences
William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn Forthcoming: Psychological Science Rushton and Jensen concede that the magnitude of the black/white IQ gap is not immutable but could have narrowed by as much as 3.44 IQ points or 0.23 white SDs. They concur that the black/white IQ gap rises with age. Using Shuey’s 1966 data, Jensen (1998) estimates: 0.70 SDs in early childhood; 1.00 SDs in middle childhood; 1.20 SDs in early adulthood. Our current estimates: 0.31 SDs (age 4); 0.63 SDs (age 12); and 0.87 SDs (age 18). Comparison of their pre-rise values and our post-rise values yield a black IQ gain of 0.33 to 0.39 SDs. This equals 5.0 to 5.5 IQ points, close to the mid-point of our estimate that blacks gained 4 to 7 points. Therefore, unless they question our current values, our main contention is also conceded. All that is at stake is the timing of the steps by which blacks progressed from Jensen's values to ours, something we grant to be problematic. And yet, Rushton and Jensen never challenge our values for current black IQ. They do argue that we exaggerate the qualitative difference between samples we consider suspect and samples we favor, namely, those used to standardize the WISC, WAIS, Stanford- Binet, and AFQT. They note that the latter are selected to be representative of Americans in general but not the black and white sub-populations. First, this is untrue of the sample used to norm the AFQT, one designed to give the military accurate data on the performance of various ethnic groups. Second, the samples we reject all have the same defect plus a host of others. To set the record straight, when we argue that the 1983 K-ABC sample suffered from too great variance, that argument (scorned) is not ours but borrowed from Jensen (1984). Also, with 2 respect to the Woodcock-Johnson, the following sentence should have been included in our appendix: Analysis of the sub-sample of the research sample done by Wicherts (2005) shows that it is not representative of the US population and that the sub-sample with data on all tests is a non-random subset of the research sample. Rushton and Jensen call for values based on the totality of the evidence. Our Appendix B anticipates this objection by analyzing the samples we think flawed. We show that every one of these confirms our projections for black IQ in 2002. Rushton and Jensen do not dispute this contention. Rather, they cite Roth et al (2001) who found a 1.1 SD gap based on 6,246,729 individuals from military, corporate, and higher education samples. This massive meta-analysis does not challenge our main contention. Treating GRE (Graduate Record Exam) results as a single source, almost 60 % of the studies analyzed refer to pre-1980 data. As for the 1.1 SD gap, Roth et al's median age would not be under 24. Our data give a current IQ for blacks age 24 of 83.4 or exactly 1.1 SDs below whites. Ruston and Jensen quote Roth et al as concluding that there has been no black gain. However, Roth et all (2001, p. 323) explicitly state that they " . . . were unable to assess the influence of time on standardized ethnic group differences." Instead, they direct the reader to three studies: Lynn (1998) which is a study of vocabulary scores and not IQ; Wonderlic data already analyzed in Appendix B; and Nyborg and Jensen (2000) which does not attempt to measure trends over time and which Jensen himself does not cite against us. If Ruston and Jensen wish to make a case based on these three studies, they should do so. To cite Roth et al's opinion of them is simply an appeal to authority. To imply that it is based on the data Roth et al analyzed is unhelpful. 3 Rushton and Jensen apply "simple arithmetic" to our Table A1 and derive a pre-rise value for black IQ of 86.44 and a post-rise value of 89.88. Table A1 contains raw data that must be adjusted, particularly for the fact that the data sets range from covering a full 30 years (the WISC) to covering only 16 years (the SB). It is fortunate we have no data set covering a period of one year, or simply averaging it in would tend to drag gains down towards zero. However, note the values Rushton and Jensen derive. For circa 1999, they put black IQ at 89.88 for subjects whose median age is 15, higher than our 2002 projection for that age. If they believe in that value, the fact that black IQ was only at 86.44 some 20 years earlier is irrelevant. They know that Jensen's value for age 15 some 50 years ago was 1.1 SDs or 83.5. Once again, questioning values for dates intermediate between 1960 and the present day is beside the point -- so long as they let our current values stand. Their points against our methods appendix are trivial. Our projection does not cover more years than the data analyzed: the WISC data cover the whole period of 1972 to 2002. The other data terminate in 1995, 1997, and 2001 respectively. If anyone prefers actual values to projections, see Figure 2. The terminal values afforded by the actual data average at 87.55 for age 15 and the terminal dates average at 1999. At the earlier age of 12, black IQ would stand at 89.36. This is only 0.709 SDs below the white mean: we have no great objection if that value is agreed for 1999. Rushton and Jensen say we side step the issue that IQ gains over time are not g gains (general intelligence gains). In Table 2, we meet this issue head-on by calculating the g gap between black and white for each standardization sample and showing has it has narrowed in tandem with the IQ gap. They seem to concede the validity of this in their emphasis that at any given time, the black/white IQ gap is factor invariant. 4 No recent data poses a serious challenge to our current estimates for black IQ: 95.4 at age 4, 90.5 at age 12, 87.0 at age 18. Today, the IQ gap between young blacks and whites is far less than 1.1 SDs. The immutability of the black/white IQ gap is a fiction and must be deleted from any list of arguments that genes play a causal role. References Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger. Lynn, R. (1998). Has the Black-White intelligence difference in the United States been narrowing over time? Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 999-1002. Nyborg, H., & Jensen, A. R. (2000). Black-white differences on psychometric tests: Spearman's hypothesis tested on American armed services veterans. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 593-599. Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer III, F. S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297-330.
quote:Show me Flynn's follow-up.
See above..
quote:Yes, other factors influence social outcomes, however IQ is the strongest and best predictor of all those factors in free societies. The fact that A, B, and C all influence social outcomes doesn't change the fact that A is a requisite for certain outcomes. In other words, the high IQ hoodlum might become a very successful gangster and could very well have been a superb legit business man in a different environment. But his low IQ minions could never be successful in either setting.
Regardless, you avoid the implication of why it isn't 100% predictive devoid of environmental factors that are more difficult to measure or anticipate, thus, such social circumstances cannot be used as evidence to support a correlation with IQ.
quote:
So why has nothing changed since America has changed so much in those 50 years? The article is referring to Black Americans, not pre-selected African immigrants and bi-racial children.
A lot has changed, pal. Also, Bi-racial children weren't involved in the sample (straw man) and under your own racial IQ model, African immigrants should perform even worse than African Americans do (let alone whites and Asians), which they do not. Thus, different cultural and environmental factors breed different results.
quote:The article you link to below even suggests that it may very well be due to Affirmative Action policies that we see African immigrants in the proportions of higher education that we do.
African immigrants aren't granted Affirmative Action and the article makes no such claim. Conversely, it is questioned whether or not Affirmative Action is even effective since African immigrants who have no historical ties to American slavery, excel with out it. The same is also true in Britain (as can be seen in the second citation) where Affirmative Action in non-existent.
quote: Today:
DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up. - Click Here
Also see: "African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree", The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31
See above.
quote:This info is accounted for by adoption studies and cross-cultural studies which reap the same consistent results time after time with respect to racial groups.
Most of these same adoption studies show a dramatic shift in IQ and a vast reduction of the gap when the guardian's "racial" identity is taken into consideration. Black and mixed WWII adoptees were shown to possess identical IQs compared to their white siblings and a study by Tizard ironically showed an advantage for Blacks and mixed children. - See Nisbett (1998)
quote:Yes, schooling presumably has an affect on school performance and intellectual development. This is strong evidence that differences in groups exist genetically considering that high IQ parents raising a Black child in a home with the best nutrition, and best schools, best opportunity, will invariably end up with a kid with relatively meager IQ.
Not true per the examples I gave above, that are well established.
I'm not attacking Jensen's record, only his ridiculous theories on IQ and Heritability.. In fact, this is how most scientists approach his research and is exactly why he is so widely criticized. As is generally pointed out, scientists often ignore extremist views based on blatantly erroneous information. With Jensen however, his status in psychology warrants in the very least, an exploration of the data and subsequent formal rejection.
For example, his landmark paper, "How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement", was cited nearly more than any research paper in the history of IQ studies. Ironically, it was mostly cited for examples of pseudoscience.
quote: Rebuttal to Kaplan: JACK KAPLAN argues that intelligence tests do not measure intelligence because individuals with more or better education will usually do better at answering the questions. (The same argument is made by Mr. Fischer and his colleagues with reference to the particular test used in Herrnstein and Murray's analyses.) But this assumes, ironically enough, that intelligence is a trait that cannot be affected by education. If we follow Mr. Kaplan's logic to its conclu -sion, we shall soon be holding that intel ligence must be determined completely by genetic and prenatal factors--something it is safe to presume he does not believe.
Psychometric conceptions of intelligence commonly give roles to both "fluid" intelligence, loosely corresponding to the ability to process information in novel ways, and "crystallized" intelligence, or the stored knowledge and methods that assist in problem-solving. Both are associated with general intelligence, but they influence one another as well, and develop differently across an individual's life span. Perhaps Mr. Kaplan considers only fluid intelligence to be "true" intelligence, but it is not possible to separate "intellectual ability" completely from "intellectual achievement." Even if we considered only measures of fluid intelligence as predictors of job performance and other outcomes, the results would probably not differ greatly, since fluid intelligence is the strongest component of general intelligence. - http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998b.html
More logic: I have also been bothered by the reluctance of many social scientists and others to accept the idea--or in fact the scientific finding--that variations in people's mental abilities may at least be partly founded on genetics. I find it odd that while most people acknowledge the partially genetic basis for many physical diseases and psychological disorders, they regard it as distasteful and unacceptable to think about cognitive ability in terms of genes. We can regret that genes affect many aspects of our lives, but it is more rational to accept this fact and think about ways of helping people (children and adults) to overcome the limitations that may be imposed on them by adverse genes.
Wow, you only contradict your own position by citing someone (Chabris) who concedes to the environmental manipulation of intelligence. Way to go. I guess since "crystallized" intelligence is inextricably linked to fluid intelligence, and since "crystallized" intelligence is highly dependent on stored knowledge, it logically follows that neither is reliably predictive in an uncontrolled setting and ever changing environment. Good job. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: The Asian group includes Chinese, Korean, and Japanese which is what raises the level of higher education attendees.
The European immigrants are from Russia and Canada for goodness sakes. Canada? Yes, immigrants from Canada are your ordinary Canadians. You're not going to see only high IQ people emigrating out of Canada to the US. You're going to get many commoners, just like Mexican (legal and illegal) influx into US.
They should really break down the stats further to see which Asian groups are represented and which "White" groups are represented instead of clumping them all together.
LOL, stop squirming. Your wishful speculation doesn't hold water nor explain why Africans outperform whites nearly 2 to 1. Under your own model, Canadians and Europeans should predictably outdo their African counter parts as there's no evidence that the said Africans came from higher class social conditions than the former or the latter. Current events would actually lend support towards the opposite conclusion...
These results were repeated across the Atlantic in Great Britain as well so it is definitely a realistic trend that is generally uncontested.
Quote: "British blacks from Africa are a more educated group as a whole than are whites in the United Kingdom" - "African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree", The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think about it, there is entirely nothing scientific, about eugenicists IQ claims whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Black pathologies exist because of this innate disparity in IQ. Historical wrongs notwithstanding, we must understand that IQ explains things better than anything else. If less than half of all US blacks have the AVERAGE IQ of Whites, it goes without saying that on average they're going to lag behind.
When you get to the college and professional levels, you're going to see a severe cutoff. When I drive past highschools here in the city, they're packed with black kids.
^It's about as scientific as is a 15th century Portuguese saying: "the sun obviously revolves around the earth, else it wouldn't come up everyday".
We now know fortunately that the Earth rotates.
quote:Historical wrongs notwithstanding, we must understand that IQ explains things better than anything else.
Yes, I agree.
Both IQ and black pathologies explain the current socio-economic situation.
They are a direct result of a disparity in cultural situations.
Glad we agree.
quote:If less than half of all US blacks have the AVERAGE IQ of Whites, it goes without saying that on average they're going to lag behind.
If the Earth that supports us is flat overall, it goes without saying that the whole world is flat.
(You're 2 dimensional)
Scientific analysis:
Here's one basic point Shaun doesn't seem to comprehend: in scientific analysis, and also in experimentation (which would the IQ tests),
you can logically only allow one variable to affect the subject at a time, else you won't know what the cause for something may be.
Like in my 3rd grade take-home science experiment.
Bread molding. We had to test several variables, like light and air.
Flynn has proven what affect IQ, end of story.
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi:
Hold on just a second Icarus Jeeves. I know damn well my Intelligence is not this high so this only proves that IQ test are a bunch of bullshit and a form of Tautology.
What I did notice is the style of questions asked were familiar to me because I grew up in a European school system showing that once again IQ's are indicative of an *exposure* to certain knowledge as well as being educated and having experience with test taking skills *in a European system*.
Why are you taking sshaun the trailer park t.v dinner eating dude seriously
lol, I'm not taking him seriously, just showing him that to see if he'd be bold enough to answer the question - which I'm failry sure, he couldn't answer on his own.
And you're right about the questions.
Mine were particularly number and math based to where knowing a few tricks would be helpful.
Plus the test is not timed, and so if you take your time you could easily ace it.
Btw, hmm... I wonder ...
voila! Is that what you did? Read the url posted by me, modified it, posted the 'score'? lol
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: Technically, I qualify for membership in the High IQ Society based on my score but I decided to not pay that useless fee to join. Mine is 127. Though I will always contend that "IQ" is overrated and "race" is obsolete. I take no pride in such man-made tests, even if I've learned somehow to master them.[/QB]
Yeah, I think that online test was insufficient.
I did take one in real life performed fairly high in most everything except in reading comprehension was just above average (avg is 100).
Math was really high, but my overall score was somewhere between 110s to the low 120s.
IMO they just show one's academic affluence, mental fitness, and then, in smaller significance one's natural skill (that they were fortunate enough to have been able to let develope).Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I know for a fact that many online tests report inaccurate results. I believe I got a 147 on tickle, a 122 on TheFreeIQtest.com, 124 with simpleQ, and 117 on some other obscure site. They are all still logged in my e-mail. I scored a 127 with the international IQ society and I assume that that may be the most accurate result, though I'm not exactly sure how having an "above average" IQ has benefited me at the expense of my own motivation to succeed in life. My IQ is a lot higher than the president's, who has a lot more influence over my life, than I do his.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ has many confounding variables - culture, environment, etc. IQ is malleable, and to a [lesser] degree so is g. We know this because if the brain is not permitted to develop to its full potential than it will not function at its optimal level.
Regardless, we know that some people are better equipped than others. We know that under the most controlled conditions some people will have extremely high IQs that very few in the same conditions can ever obtain. We have different dispositions, temperaments, and innate potential intelligences.
Your contention is that Black IQ has risen several points and now hovers at around 89 rather than 85. I believe that more studies will be needed to confirm these findings. However, this would be fantastic if true.
But I still argue that this does not mean that population groups do not differ on average innate intelligence. Until there is parity or reversal, the question will remain debatable. The increase in average IQ and g also doesn't speak to proportional differences. In group A, you get the majority around IQ of 100, in group B the majority around a lower IQ. This will lead to significant differences in average outcomes. We see the differences in distributions between men and women in certain abilities, and while culture has a major influence, I don't think anybody truly believes that male and female average intelligence in every area is identical. Evolution essentially precludes this, or at least the differences in physical biology between the sexes ensures developmental differences of male/female brains such that they may as well be innate differences.
The article you cited does say something about bi-racial children in the study:
"somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of black undergraduates were 'West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.'"
This is yet another confounding variable. If in the past 30 years there has been significant interracial offspring and they've been included in the testing, this may be part of the explanation for an IQ or g increase of a point or two. Studies done previously show that black/brown children have average IQs that fall midway between black and white IQs. Nobody has been able to explain this phenom using cultural or social explanations. The German military study that you cite that shows black children scoring the same as white children is merely a single study with a lot of unknowns, and has not been replicated.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If in the past 30 years there has been significant interracial offspring and they've been included in the testing, this may be part of the explanation for an IQ or g increase of a point or two. Studies done previously show that black/brown children have average IQs that fall midway between black and white IQs. Nobody has been able to explain this phenom using cultural or social explanations. The German military study that you cite that shows black children scoring the same as white children is merely a single study with a lot of unknowns, and has not been replicated.
Bad scientific thinking. How can you base a scientific hypothesis on "if" and "may"?
Also what do you mean by "significant interracial[which "races"?] offspring. 5%, 10%? Learn to be specific and learn to express yourself quantiatively when necessary!
Silly point about so-called "black/brown" children. Very obviously, the puzzle is solved once you factor in the social class/culture and IQs[note: IQs are very heavily environmentally influenced. Even a rabidly fanatical IQ fundamentalist like Rushton put the nature-nurture split at 50/50]of the parents.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: IQs are very heavily environmentally influenced. Even a rabidly fanatical IQ fundamentalist like Rushton put the nature-nurture split at 50/50]of the parents.
And arbitrarily so, ignoring the conclusions of the American Psychological Association's special panel on IQ. It is equally apparent that Shaun is ranting now while beating around the fact that he'd ran out of ways to undermine Flynn's findings, so now he simply doesn't want to believe them. He only believes in the scientific process when convenient abandoning all reason in favor of wishful thinking and unsubstantiated ideological beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: The article you cited does say something about bi-racial children in the study:
"somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of black undergraduates were 'West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples".
^^Learn how to read and stop looking for key words that mean little in isolation. They say "something" about them, but not anything relevant to the article's point. They are referring to Blacks in general who were Harvard undergraduates, and how two-thirds were either from the west Indies or the African continent, while others [to a lesser extent] were bi-racial and obviously the rest being predominantly African-American. The study is about African immigrants, not Bi-racial children Or African Americans. This was an isolated example of how Black immigrants out represent other Blacks.
quote:"About 8 percent, or 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, they said, but somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of black undergraduates were "West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples".
They quote a Jamaican immigrant to offer some perspective:
As one immigrant Jamaican friend once told me, "I'm too busy working two jobs to worry about the white man's racism."
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: If in the past 30 years there has been significant interracial offspring and they've been included in the testing, this may be part of the explanation for an IQ or g increase of a point or two.
LOL, are you that obtuse? This is a sociological study. It takes census data and the related to report ethnic trends in academic success, so this is a review and average for ALL African immigrants who report to the census bureau and have attained high degrees [which would correlate with g as an indication of social performance]. It is apparent that you're looking for any way out, but can't seem to squirm away from the facts.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Studies done previously show that black/brown children have average IQs that fall midway between black and white IQs. Nobody has been able to explain this phenom using cultural or social explanations. The German military study that you cite that shows black children scoring the same as white children is merely a single study with a lot of unknowns, and has not been replicated.
*Sigh* It is striking how a person who puts so much emphasis on intellectual capabilities can't seem to understand the most simple principle of reading, which is comprehension. It HAS been replicated, with even more striking results from Tizard.
Adoptive studies and the related, directly refuting a genetic origin:
Blood groups:
quote:"Loehlin and colleagues (1973) also correlated the estimated Europeanness of blood groups (rather than the Europeanness of individuals, estimated from their blood groups) with IQ in two different small samples of blacks. They found a .01 correlation in one sample and a nonsignificant -.38 correlation in the other sample, with the more African blood groups having higher IQ"
While there is limited correlation between Blood groups and IQ, I'd think it interesting that there may be SOME, while against your own conventional wisdom, those with more African blood groupings seem to have higher IQs. Hmmm..
quote:"A study by Witty and Jenkins (1934) identified 63 children in a sample of black Chicago schoolchildren with IQs of 125 or above and 28 with IQs of 140 or above. On the basis of their self reports about ancestry, the investigators classified the children into several categories of Europeanness. The children with IQs of 125 or above, as well as those with IQs of 140 or above, had slightly less European ancestry than the best estimate for the American black population at the time.'
^^In other words, the Black children with the lowest amounts of European ancestry scored the highest, while those with the most European ancestry scored the lowest. This again in the same way, directly undermines what you'd like to predict.
As for the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Nurture wins.
This is evident in a paper by Willerman (1974), finding that mixed children with White mothers and Black fathers had an IQ 9 points higher than mixed children with Black mothers and White fathers.
Society would predict that women play a larger role in nurturing children while building them the skills necessary to attain a high IQ. White women obviously are in a better social position to do that and this is corroborated by the results, causing irreparable damage to your primitive theories.
Now... Aside from the German military study, this was also confirmed by Moore (1986):
quote:"Compared mean IQ test performance and response styles to cognitive demands of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) among 23 Black children (aged 7-10 yrs) who had been adopted by middle-class White families (i.e., transracially adopted) and 23 age-matched Black children who had been adopted by middle-class Black families (i.e., traditionally adopted). Findings indicate that while the traditionally adopted Ss received normal IQ scores, transracially adopted Ss showed nearly 1 standard deviation Full-Scale Scoring advantage over them. A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated significant differences in the styles of responding to test demands demonstrated by the 2 groups of Ss, which were conceptualized as contributors to the difference in average test score observed between them. Multivariate analysis of the helping behaviors adopted mothers exhibited when helping their children solve a difficult cognitive task revealed significant differences between Black and White mothers, which were conceptualized as culturally determined. White adopted mothers tended to release tension by joking, grinning, and laughing, while Black adoptive mothers more often released tension in less positive ways such as scowling, coughing, and frowning. White adoptive mothers were more likely than Black adoptive mothers to provide positive evaluations of their children's problem solving efforts. It is concluded that the ethnicity of the rearing environment exerts a significant influence on children's styles of responding to standardized intelligence tests and on their test achievement.".
Another blow to your outdated claims. In the study, those Blacks raised with White families had a mean IQ of 117, while those Blacks who were raised in Black families had an IQ that was substantially lower. Environment owns all.
And again, you ignore that I'd cited Tizard right along side the German military study, which would have saved you the embarrassment of the constant oversight and claims that studies which have seen much external support, weren't replicated.
quote:"An experiment by Tizard and colleagues compared black and white orphans who had all been raised in the same highly enriched institutional environment. At four or five years of age, white children had IQs of 103, black children had IQs of 108, and children of mixed race had IQs of 106."
Under your model, this would actually suggest a slight genetic advantage for Blacks..
The ONLY adoption study you speak of, that is widely circulated is also widely criticized, even by its own authors. In fact, Scarr and Weinberg caution against making any conclusions at all pertaining to their study given different variables that render the study unreliable.
As for Brain size and cognitive ability inferred from neurology, you still seem to fall short. Tobias (1970) confirmed in his summary that out of the world population samples, African-Americans had larger cranial capacity than did any White groups, with the exception of Swedes. He also reports African-Americans as having an excess of 200 Million more neurons than American whites. Weizmann et al. (1990) confirmed these, detecting selection bias in former studies.
In conclusion Shaun, you have no answers..
Many of these citations are a courtesy of Nisbett (1998)....
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Examination of the volumes in the context of total cranial volume indicated that, whereas in men there was a proportionate increase of GM and WM as a function of cranial volume, in women the slope of increase of WM was significantly shallower than that for GM. This sex difference in intracranial tissue composition may reflect adaptation to the smaller cranial volumes of women. Sexual anatomic dimorphism has been comparable at least since the Middle Pleistocene hominids (Arsuaga et al., 1997). Because GM is the somatodendritic tissue where computation is done whereas WM is the myelinated connective tissue needed for information transfer across distant regions, a higher percentage of GM in women increases the proportion of tissue available for computational processes. This is a reasonable evolutionary strategy because smaller crania require shorter distances for information transfer; hence there could be relatively less need for WM.
^Djehuti's citation from a study concerned with sex relationships with white matter and gray matter brain composition. It was originally claimed to have been a study about brain functionality and sex (in favor of males, which was incorrect).
The context was different, but it's gives people who haven't thought about this whole matter a little insight.
A snippet from a site not running at the moment:
quote:The presented information above strongly suggests that African born blacks residing in western countries, as a group may possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries (see, Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Richardson, 2002; Cross, 1994; Williams, 2005) – This is especially true for those living in the United States and in the UK. One may also expect to find, according to much of the corroborative literature that relates IQ with education, approximately twice the number of African born immigrants with IQs in the 115 range, than among the general white American population (Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Williams, 2005), and “more” than twice the number of African immigrants in the 125 IQ range (Gottfredson, 1998; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). Race, Intelligence and IQ: Are Blacks Smarter? By Bernie Douglas (April 10, 2008) What is IQ and Why the Racial Controversy? IQ is a culturally, socially, and ideologically rooted concept; an index intended to predict success (i.e., to predict outcomes that are valued as success by some people) in a given society. The items on these tests are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg et al, 1998a, 1999, 2003a) and are devised impressionistically by psychologists to simply mimic the psycholinguistic structures of schooling and middle class clerical/administrative occupations (Richardson, 2002). Alfred Binet, the IQ’s inventor, originally devised the IQ test to screen children for educational difficulties, and made clear its conceptual foundations (See Richardson, 2002). IQ tests are, and were originally designed to be nothing more than devices for generating numbers that are useful in assessing academic aptitude with in a given culture.
Most traditional Intelligence tests measure specific forms of cognitive ability that are said to be predictive of school functioning, but do not measure the many forms of intelligence that are beyond these more specific skills, such as music, creativity, art, interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities (Braaten and Norman, 2006). IQ and similar tests are also unable to measure potential, are not independent from what is measured by achievement tests, and are not powerful predictors of low reading performance (Siegel, 1989, Bradshaw, 2001). Test results in one child can vary according to mood, motivation, and fatigue, while the tests themselves show prominent rehearsal/learning effects, generally assume a degree of literacy, and are largely framed to suit Western cultural requirements (O’Brien, 2001). For these reasons, many argue that the use of IQ tests should be abandoned (Siegel, 1989, 1992; Vellutino et al, 2000, Bradshaw, 2001; Schonemann, 1997c). In addition, no tests except dynamic tests (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002a) that require learning at the time of the test, directly measure ability to learn. Traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning, which can be the result of differences in many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn.
To date there is no serious evidence demonstrating IQ tests to measure either an inborn property (see Hirsch 1970, 2004; Schonemann, 1997c, 2005; Kempthorn 1978, 1997, Capron et al, 1999) or what is commonly understood to mean “intelligence.” Intelligence is a highly subjective and culturally confound concept which is largely undefined (see Schonemann, 1997c; Sternberg, 1998; Cole et al, 1971; Guttman, 1955). The twin and adoption studies used to report heritability estimates in relationship to IQ tests have been shown repeatedly to be highly suspicious in nature. For example, statistical models used in twin studies and inferences from them relating to IQ tests tend to lack statistical validity (Capron et al., 1999; Kempthorn, 1997). The biometrical school of scientists who fit models to IQ data traces their intellectual ancestry to R. Fisher (1918), but their genetic models have no predictive value (See Vetta, 2002; Vetta, 1976; Capron and Vetta, 2006; Capron et al, 1999). Fisher himself was critical of the concept of heritability, because assortative mating, such as for IQ, introduces complexities into the study of a genetic trait (ibid). Schonemann (1997c) has shown that conventional heritability estimates often produce absurdly high values for variables that cannot possibly be genetic. For example, if one applies the traditional heritability arithmetic to the twin data collected by Loehlin and Nichols (1976), one finds that the answer to the question “Did you take a bubble bath last year” is 90% genetic (Schonemann, 1997c).
quote:
[...]
An example of this phenomenon can be seen in a study by Serpell R. (1979), in which Zambian and English children were asked to reproduce patterns in three media: wire models, clay models, or pencil and paper. The Zambian children excelled in the wire medium with which they were familiar, while the English children were best with pencil and paper. Both groups performed equally well with clay. Thus, children performed better with materials that were more familiar to them, from their own environments. Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) studied a group of Brazilian children and found that the same children who were able to do the mathematics needed to run their street businesses were little able to do the same mathematics when presented in a formal schooling context.
[...]
quote:African Blacks Significantly Exceed Whites in Educational Attainment and Professional Employment African-born blacks comprise 16 percent of the U.S. foreign-born black population and are considerably more educated than other black immigrants (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). The vast majority of these immigrants come from minority white countries in East and West Africa (e.g. Kenya and Nigeria), and less than 2 percent originate from North or South Africa (World Factbook, 2004; Yearbook of immigration Statistics, 2003). In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education, African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group, which included those from Europe, North America and Asia (also see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). African immigrants have also been shown to be more highly educated than any native-born ethnic group including white and Asian Americans (see also, Logan & Deane, 2003; Williams, 2005; The Economist, 1996; Arthur, 2000; Selassie, 1998).
Most current data suggest that between 43.8 and 48.9 percent of all African immigrants in the United States hold a college diploma (Charles, 2007; U.S. Census, 2000). This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly “double” the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans (Williams, 2005; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). Black immigrants from Africa have also been shown to have rates of college graduation that are “more” than double that of the U.S.-born population, in general (Williams, 2005). For example, in 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a “graduate degree”, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites (a difference of “more than” double) and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). This shows that America has an equally large achievement gap between white Americans and African born immigrants as between native born white and black Americans.
In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George's, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. However, minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles. Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for University admissions were actually working against students from these ethnic groups who were on average more qualified for higher education than their white peers (Cross, 1994; Also see, Dustmann, Theodoropoulos, 2006).
Boring sh*yt on brain sizes and neurons:
quote:Race and Brain Size The majority of empirical studies on the matter of racial differences in brain size suggest that blacks from comparable environments will have larger brains than do others. Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size: large people tend to have larger brains (Gould, 1981, 1999). As a result, women on average will have smaller brains than men (Peters, 1991). However, this does not indicate that the level of male intelligence is higher than female intelligence; Neanderthals had on average larger brains than anatomically modern humans (Tattersall, 1995; Gould, 1981) but most would agree that they were considerably less intelligent than Homo sapiens (Tattersal, 1995, 2004; Gould, 1981; Mithen 1998). In addition, female brains are structured in a way that would more than make up for any size differences.
Tobias (1970) compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size, in which he reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group, (which included American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the groups measured), and American blacks were also estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990). Gould (1981, 1996) discovered upon recalculating Morton’s skull data that the crania of blacks in his sample were on average larger than those of whites. Morton included in his sample of black skulls more females than he included in the white sample. For example, in his analysis of Hottentotts (black tribe from South Africa) all measured crania were of females; the Englishmen were all mature men. Morton had eliminated especially large brains from the African group and especially small brains from the European. Also, Morton did some early measurements with seed instead of shot. When he discovered that this method gave inconsistent results, he re did the Caucasian values with shot, but not the blacks (See Gould, 1981, 1996). After correcting these errors it was shown that the black sample had larger crania (and presumably, larger brains) than did whites (ibid).
Interestingly, during the time periods in which the data for the above mentioned studies were collected anthropomorphic research has shown that blacks were on average physically smaller in stature than whites and received poorer nutrition (e.g. Alan, 2006). Indicating that in spite of relatively lower anthropomorphic measurements and poorer nutritional intake, blacks still demonstrated larger brain volume.
Friedrich Tiedemann (a famous 17th century craniometrist) noted that many anthropologists in his time simply chose the smallest-brained and biggest-jawed African ‘skull’ they could find and then published a single drawing as "proof" of what every (Caucasian) observer already "knew" in any case! Tiedemann labored to produce the largest compilation of data ever assembled, with all items based entirely on his own measurements of skulls for all races. From his extensive tables (38 male African and 101 male Caucasian skulls), Tiedemann concludes that no differences in brain sizes can distinguish human races (See Gould, 1999). In some instances the favor was actually in the direction of blacks.
Most contemporary evidence shows that there is virtually no correlation between the intensity of different selective force gradients and cranial morphology (Harvati and Weaver, 2006; Keita, 2004; Roseman and Weaver, 2004; Roseman, 2004; Gould, 1981, 1996; Brace, 2001). Indeed, positive geographic selective force correlations relating to craniometric variables are usually only (vaguely) observed when samples from extreme cold (arctic) environments, such as Inuit types and Siberians, are included in analysis (Roseman, 2004; Harvati and Weaver, 2006). For example, Harvati and Weaver (2006) found a weak association between cranial centroid sizes and climatic variables, which approached, but did not reach, significance. This effect disappeared when an Inugsuk (a group from Greenland similar to Eskimos) sample was removed from the analysis (ibid). Roseman (2004) observed similar findings with a Siberian sample – once the Serbian sample was removed from the analysis, there was no indication that environmental temperature or latitude played ‘any’ role in cranial morphology. In sum, recent studies comparing craniometric and neutral genetic affinity matrices have concluded that, on average, human cranial variation fits a model of neutral expectation.
Keita (2004) in his principal components analysis on male crania from the northeast quadrant of Africa and selected European and other African series found no consistent ‘size differences’ between regional groups, as all samples showed marked variation in size. There were however some distinguishing differences in relationship to cranial shape between European and African samples, particularly with respect to nasal aperture and changes in the maxilla (part of the upper jaw from which the teeth grow). The primary goal of this study was to assess the anatomical basis of patterns of craniofacial variation along an African–European continuum, with special focus on North Africa. There was Interest in whether there was a sharp boundary separating any of these groups from each other (see Keita, 2004). In terms of overall cranial size, tropical African groups were found in many instances to have larger crania than European groups. For example, on close inspection of the 2 dimensional PC scatter plots, designating cranial size/shape, the Zulu sample appeared to have the largest crania of any group in the analysis, followed by Norse (Norway) and then Teita (Kenya). African crania were also found to be broader (wider) than European crania on average. Surprisingly, one European sample, Berg (Hungarian), correlated more closely with African samples in this respect than with other European samples. Tremendous overlap between all groups was observed in this study, for most variables (see Keita, 2004).
Other physical anthropological research has also shown the crania of Sub-Saharan Africans to be generally wider, exhibiting greater cranial breath than European and North African samples, verbatim. For example sub-Saharan specimens show a generalized vertical facial flattening, with consequent widening of the entire structure (Bruner and Manzi, 2004). This pattern involves interorbital and orbital enlargement, widening and flattening of the nasal bones and aperture, maxillary development and upper rotation, and a general widening and lowering of the face. The face shortens vertically and this flattening leads to a relative lateral enlargement of the whole morphology and maxillary frontward rotation (see Bruner and Manzi, 2004). The pattern toward the other extreme shows the opposite processes, with a general vertical stretching related to a lateral narrowing, as seen in European and North African samples (ibid).
Despite certain trends observed among African crania, Roseman and Weaver (2007) found that the amount of phenotypic variation in human cranial morphology decreases at the population level the further one travels from Sub-Saharan Africa. African populations tend to exhibit more cranial variation than do other world populations (Hanihara et al, 2003; Hiernaux, 1975; Keita, 2004; Roseman and Weaver, 2007). Relethford (1994) and Relethford and Harpending (1994) found that the amount of morphological variation among major geographic groups is relatively low, and is compatible with those based on the genetic data, where Africa shows the most variation. Manica et al (2007) note a smooth loss of genetic diversity with increasing distance from Africa, and along with this, using a large data set of skull measurements and an analytical framework equivalent to that used for genetic data, also show that the loss in genetic diversity is mirrored by a loss in phenotypic variability.
Extensive research in human genetics on ‘presumably’ neutral loci has shown that the overwhelming majority of human diversity is found among individuals within local populations. Previous studies of craniometric diversity are similar to these genetic apportionments, implying that interregionally differing selection pressures have played a limited role in producing contemporary human cranial diversity (Roseman and Weaver, 2004; Brace, 2001).
Genetic studies of human brainsize have discovered two genes that when mutated can result in severely
[...]
I think nuture definitely trumps nature, but he (Ssshaun002) isopen to his own popinions.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. If blacks can achieve without Obama, even under a hypocrite liberal president and a Republican congress, why do we need faith in Obamamania again?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Come to think about it, there is entirely nothing scientific, about eugenicists IQ claims whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Black pathologies exist because of this innate disparity in IQ. Historical wrongs notwithstanding, we must understand that IQ explains things better than anything else. If less than half of all US blacks have the AVERAGE IQ of Whites, it goes without saying that on average they're going to lag behind.
When you get to the college and professional levels, you're going to see a severe cutoff. When I drive past highschools here in the city, they're packed with black kids.
^It's about as scientific as is a 15th century Portuguese saying: "the sun obviously revolves around the earth, else it wouldn't come up everyday".
We now know fortunately that the Earth rotates.
quote:Historical wrongs notwithstanding, we must understand that IQ explains things better than anything else.
Yes, I agree.
Both IQ and black pathologies explain the current socio-economic situation.
They are a direct result of a disparity in cultural situations.
Glad we agree.
quote:If less than half of all US blacks have the AVERAGE IQ of Whites, it goes without saying that on average they're going to lag behind.
If the Earth that supports us is flat overall, it goes without saying that the whole world is flat.
(You're 2 dimensional)
Scientific analysis:
Here's one basic point Shaun doesn't seem to comprehend: in scientific analysis, and also in experimentation (which would the IQ tests),
you can logically only allow one variable to affect the subject at a time, else you won't know what the cause for something may be.
Like in my 3rd grade take-home science experiment.
Bread molding. We had to test several variables, like light and air.
Flynn has proven what affect IQ, end of story.
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi:
Hold on just a second Icarus Jeeves. I know damn well my Intelligence is not this high so this only proves that IQ test are a bunch of bullshit and a form of Tautology.
What I did notice is the style of questions asked were familiar to me because I grew up in a European school system showing that once again IQ's are indicative of an *exposure* to certain knowledge as well as being educated and having experience with test taking skills *in a European system*.
Why are you taking sshaun the trailer park t.v dinner eating dude seriously
lol, I'm not taking him seriously, just showing him that to see if he'd be bold enough to answer the question - which I'm failry sure, he couldn't answer on his own.
And you're right about the questions.
Mine were particularly number and math based to where knowing a few tricks would be helpful.
Plus the test is not timed, and so if you take your time you could easily ace it.
Btw, hmm... I wonder ...
voila! Is that what you did? Read the url posted by me, modified it, posted the 'score'? lol
No you are supposed to copy the Url from the email
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
@ wolofi - I know they give you a link, inwhich you just copy the forum format (ubb code I guess) text as instructed to advertise [your score] for the site. i was just asking U 2 C if U copied my given url code and posted it with a higher number.
btw i don't remember being sent no email, just a popup page , but it's no biggy I'll jus take ur wird 4 it.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I look forward to African Nobel Prize winners in the near future. Should I keep my fingers crossed?
Lol. You treat the Nobel Foundation as though it were some geopolitical-dogma-free institution; and why look forward to that which already exists anyway? "Keeping your fingers crossed" is thus obviously not the solution you ought to be seeking; rather, your remedy is to do a simple thing such as, opening a book at least once in a blue moon, and getting exposed to civilization.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still see that Sshaun continues to get his rocks off by promoting his racial-IQ scientific racism...
Funny how he's been doing so ever since his misconceptions of non-black non-African Egyptians was eradicated. LOL
I take it to be Eurocentric dogma #8: IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY.
Thus if ancient Egyptians were black and Africans really did create advanced civilizations earlier than Europeans, then it doesn't matter because they all have lower IQs than Europeans anyway. LOLPosts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The "umbrella" of African individuals clearly out perform the "umbrella" of Europeans while these supposed domestic servants from Asia attain the same results. The outliners are the Europeans, who perform lower than expected under your cherished predictive models pertaining to IQ.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
^ I can verify what Sundiata has stated.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic