Once again, the topic comes up.

This article recaps the history of IQ tests, 'Bell curve' Staphen Jay Gould's response...

Richard Lynn's book 'IQ and Wealth of nations ' seems to be intersting. The poorer the nation, lower the IQ. so it seems more economical than 'racial'. Also important is the 'Flynn effect' - all IQs are improving with each generation. Again points to environmental factors.

"Are whites cleverer than blacks?"

KKK Grand Imperial Wizard Supreme Poohbah and all-round Democrat WHITE guy...West Virginia Senator Bobby Byrd would reply:

"YES!"

I think if I were constantly bombarded with government & media (liberal) telling me I couldn't do it on my own, eventually I'd start to believe it.

Oh, PLEASE!!!!

Why go through this door again??

With this kind of garbage in print, no wonder racism won't go away.

Personally, I am glad someone has the courage to state the obvious.

I don't know, but it seems our schools were dumbed down to accommodate them.

#3 is right, *You can't make it on your own* is sort of an unspoken mantra among democrats. Of course, it is to their advantage and Blacks are SMART enough(not dumb) to let them get by with it.

Blacks are less clever???? Nope.

What's garbagy about it? And please define racism. Or is that just a way of shutting down the conversation? I don't understand how people can so thoroughly conclude that something can't be true just because they find it unpleasant to think about.

I can't stand the dishonest, "samizdat" treatment of this subject (as this writer puts it). But in the end, if a "real" IQ differential exists, and even if it persists, it is nothing to get hot and bothered about. The fact that there are comparatively few math geniuses who are women doesn't make me one bit smarter or dumber in math than I am. Similarly, there are black geniuses and white morons, white geniuses and black morons, and not one of them is going to be affected by how many of each exist in the world.

I'm not sure what it means to say that race is a "social construct" with no biological basis -- in fact, I'm not sure that such a statement itself has meaning -- but I am sure that analyses of intelligence according to racial groupings do not and should not matter to any individual.

Post deleted

#8, I define racism as a philosophical belief that one race is superior to another. It's possible to be a racist and not hate other races, just as it's possible to hate other races and not be a racist.

Even if it could be proven that somehow whites are intellectually superior to blacks, widespread racial overlap and racial intermixture would render moot any broad generalizations that could be made on the basis of such knowledge. In my opinion it's best not to even go there.

Thera er some very bright black people, but in general blacks underachieve in scholastics . Its hard to dispute that. Why? Who knows? for every opinion there is a different one. Are they less intelligent? some maybe are. Are they lazy ? some maybe are. Are they guilty of bad parenting? some maybe are. Have they been told for so many years that "the man" wont let them be anything, that they believe it? Some maybe do believe this. The fact is its probably a combination of all the above. Will it ever be turned around? I dont see how. It isnt a problem in one nation but a problem the world wide. Blacks dont assimilate well amongst the other races. They dont even do well among their own. When left alone they kill each other.

How many sub-Saharan African nations ever developed a written language?

#9, that is just more of the same empty name-calling. It accomplishes nothing meaningful. Maybe you're right in your beliefs, maybe you're not, but you've said nothing at all except "I don't like that, so it can't be true."

#10, I don't see it as a question to have a philosophy about. It should be an empirical inquiry. Some groups tend to have lighter skin, smaller stature, etc., and perhaps some groups also vary in their innate talents. I agree that this sort of inquiry has limited utility since we are all individuals and an ever-growing number of us are of mixed race. However, some people will always be curious about these matters, and deciding not to "go there" isn't ultimately going to work.

Some wise person once asked, How can you look at the NBA and contend that all abilities are distributed equally throughout the general population?

Yep, except when it comes to the million ways you can cheat, manipulate welfare payments, instead of working.

If Flynn were correct, a century ago the entire white race would have been retarded, which was not the case. The Flynn effect is ambiguous and does not change the reality of race differences in intelligence.

Furthermore, the significance of the 15 IQ point gap between blacks and whites is not widely understood. Remember that the threshold IQ for success in the professions is about 115. With a white average IQ of 100 and a black average IQ of 85, we get these results:

50 percent of whites are above 100 IQ. 16 percent of blacks are above 100 IQ.

16 percent of whites are above 115 IQ. 2.3 percent of blacks are above 115 IQ.

2.3 percent of whites are above 130 IQ. 0.4 percent of blacks are above 130 IQ.

What this means is that the percentage of blacks who are minimally qualified for academic work and the professions is about one-sixth that of whites. This—not discrimination, not illegitimacy, and not culture—is the underlying reason for the small number of blacks in intellectually demanding fields.

It is liberals who claim racial harmony, then write divisive articles like this. They are great at pitting one group against the next. Why does color have to fall into this? I admire Justice Thomas, Rice...because they are smart. I also don't like the word "clever"...reminds me of "slick"....which reminds me of Bill Clinton.

"Clever" is something of a Brit term, I believe. I like it in its original "handy with the hands" sense.

I know nothing about this writer, but he certainly doesn't sound like a liberal.

Again, it would be nice if this question would go away. It isn't that important, and it is indeed the liberals who keep insisting on racial group-think. But in fact the question is not, not, not going to go away until we are so racially mixed that people no longer have racial groups to wonder about. The challenge is to deal with the question honestly, but in a way that isn't hurtful or maddening to large groups of people, which may prove to be impossible. But lying about it and shutting down conversations with charges of racism isn't ultimately going to succeed. There is a truth out there, whether we like it or not and whether we think it is an important truth or not.

I agree that the mantra of "you can't do it on your own" accounts for a lot of the underachievement. W called it the "soft racism of low expectations."

Agree with Nancy on most points.

The fact of IQ differences is real. Pointing it out is not 'racist'. Data is value-neutral. What one makes of the data is another matter. Murray and Hernstein seemed to argue that Blacks are inferior; so there was no point in trying to help. They also studiously avoided alternative interpretations of their data.

One reason for increasing IQ is simply that we are living in a much more complex environment. What the brain is exposed to during its formative years is extremely important. Now we have kids playing video games, for example, that requires processing of a lot of visual, auditory signals and responding to them. That naturally increases the capacity of brain to process larger amounts of data.

Flynn effect is indeed 'correct'; it is just hard data. Explanation could be as simple as increasing complexity of environment, improved nutrition (probably most important, Eg. Japanese average hright increased 6 inches in 2 generations). As economics improve around the world, IQ gap will close.

It could be "Institutional Recism" in schools....or it could be that these children do not have parent that give a hoot about academic achievement.
Any book by Thomas Sowell on this very subject will cover it.

I was living when schools were integrated. I asked a Teacher how things were going in the school with Black Kids mixed with White Kids? She Replied, Oh, it is going real good, No problem, If a Black Kid goes to sleep in class, I just let them sleep! I wonder if this kind of philosophy is still going on these days?

Are we playing into race baiting?

That would be "more clever"; not "cleverer."

Which leads us to some speculation, perhaps, on who wrote the headline?

LOL #24! Just what I was going to say!

Actually, IQ does not generate itself in a void. Real, above average IQ, generally means the person 'catches on quick'. If you've been raised in a jungle and don't know the slightist thing about anything, you couldn't pass the test that measures IQ in today's world. But if the jungle person is given the basics; to study and learn and apply himself and puts same into practice, then it is how swiftly he grasps the concepts of the subject(s) and retains it that would be the test for IQ, and not mere knowledge.

In Dallas Texas in the mid 80's to early 90's, when Jesse Jackson was still in the throes of taking over this city, endless articles and on-the-spot reporting of the rebellion of the Blacks who cried that 'education is the white-man's tool'. So, in this case, racial ATTITUDE could be a signficant indicator that would dumb down 'lack' of 'cleverness' in a race per se?

As Skinner found out with his research on the subject, he who suggests that there may be differences amongst humans based upon their race will be trundled through the community in a cart so that the people may jeer and throw garbage at them. No facts, no research, just garbage. If these things are racism and KKK legends, then it should be possible for Science to disprove them.

Personally, I believe that the whole idea represents a threat to the Civil Rights Industry which - as Jesse Jackson can tell you - is about the size and dollar volume of GM today. The Civil Rights (or Rites?) financial beneficiaries cannot allow the slightest hint of different ideas as individuals or as a group. Otherwise, the whole house of cards comes down,

Just look at one example. What did whites do with Europe and America, what have blacks done with Africa? And, oh by the way, take out the white colonialism effect on African development and THEN take a look at where they are. And if you want to get into the whole peoples of color thing, throw in the middle east and take out the white development of the arab oil and see where they are at also...

Oh, Yes, Nancy Drew,
You're speaking so true,
Good Detective are you!

Clever is as clever does. I knew a fellow in school who was most brilliant. His IQ was most likely genius level. He used to talk about how high it was and I really could not dispute that fact. He was very sharp. I had no chance when we played chess, and not many people I faced could beat me so easily. Anyway, the guy never did a thing with it. He has floundered. He makes $8 an hour doing phone tech support.

On the other hand, I have known many with what would be called average abilities succeed beyond all expectations. IQ is a great thing to have in your toolbox, but you have to use it. Hard work and motivation can make up for a whole lot of disadvantages one faces due to IQ, environment, familial status or whatever...

Augustine

Hmmm

It is not necessary, #9, to make an ad hominem attack upon another poster, #5, in order to point out to the rest of us that you do not approve of racism.

I suspect that you may not have even read the article as your post does not address any of the arguments contained in the article.

Please read articles so that you can post on them and not on other posters.

thanks

. . .a possible cause "institutional racism" in schools; they did not offer any deeper explanations.

People who throw the epithet "racist" around never offer any deeper explanations. They cannot. That's as deep as they go. The word was so cheapened last century it has no meaning.

Every news article should include "they did not offer any deeper explanations" as a matter of fact.

"Please read articles so that you can post on them and not on other posters."

#31: People direct posts on this site to other posters all the time just as you have directed your post at me.

Having said that, let me be clear about my reference to poster #5. IF #5's point IS that whites ARE more clever than blacks as a rule, then I stand by my assertion that that is an belief held largely due to ignorance rather than scientific reality. I do apologize for offending the posters on this board.

It's culture, not racism. White teachers may be afraid of being called racist if they demand excellence from people of color. Calling people racists or bigots is meant to end the discussion. You can't prove you're not a racist no matter what you do. I went to school with black kids whose parents demanded excellent performance and got it. That group from Africa who is being resettled in Vermont have to be taught to wear shoes and use flush toilets. I wonder how their kids will perform in school in the next 10 years.

OK, let's avoid the loaded term "racist." However, the fact is that people will look at studies like this and then act according to the original, pre-Jesse Jackson definition of Racism, which is to think someone is INFERIOR because of their Race. The danger lies not in the data itself, but in the assumptions people will make, such as "why should we even bother to educate Black People?" While we have come a long, long way since the days of Jim Crow, there are those out there who would flush the future Condi Rices and Thomas Sowells down the commode in the name of their beliefs, and they do need to be challenged when they make decisions based on Social "science" which as any Physicist or Chemist can tell you, is NOT a science in the same way as the Hard Sciences, if for no other reason than people are not as predictable as Molecules and gases.

By the way, I do not dislike all Social Science, but I do think it does need to come with a disclaimer that it is not a Science in the same way as Physics, because Human beings are NOT predictable. For centuries, Europe tried breeding a leader class, they called it "Aristocracy" instead of Genetic Engineering, but the idea was the same: breed a class of leaders from the lineage of heroes and geniuses. Well, considering we spent the last century cleaning up messes from Europe's failed expierments, we know that idea is DEAD. On the other hand: the Gas Mask, Peanut Butter, Blood Transfusions, and the Traffic Light all have one thing in common: an Afro-American Inventor. The point is, Genius happens where God chooses it to happen, and many times he does what he does to "confoundeth the wise."

What we, or in the aggregate, any defined group produces could be considered the ultimate test. Make your own list of achievements of any group over time and you have the ranking of the group.

This is a stone that is probably better left unturned in public, as what crawls out is better left hidden from of the light of day. Why prove to someone that they are at a statistical cognitive disadvantage, and give another reason to shirk achievement or otherwise stultify aspirations? Some will believe it. What would we be without if Thomas A. Edison believed he was the idiot his teachers believed him to be?

Are whites cleverer than blacks?
I am curious at the choice of the word ''cleverer''(BTW is that a real word?).

Does it mean deviousness, deceitfulness, creative crookedness or does it mean hard working, abundantly gifted with creativeness, loaded with engenuity, endowed with resourcefullness. I am hoping it means the latter.

When failing is the watchword of far too many blacks and failing is seen as the stepping stone to gang membership (you know, the pinnacle of black neighborhood success)it appears whites don't have to be too clever to seem more clever than blacks.

I found it interesting that the race and economics correlation was taken to prove that money makes one smarter, when I would have said smarter makes one money. Am I wrong?

Many, if not all, statistical studies of IQ v race show that blacks have an average IQ that is lower than the average IQ of whites and Asians. That does not mean that blacks are less worthy, but that it takes the average black longer to learn something. Using the information to adjust the teaching styles for blacks would be a positive result, but too many are too willing to dismiss the findings as "racist." BTW, there are IQ tests that can be used on infants, so culture is not a requirement, only mental agility.

Poster 37 wonders what good it does to know about these things. While nobody gets pleasure from pointing out these racial differences in intelligence, it's necessary to know about them because white society is being blamed for a black deficit in achievement that is not whites' fault.

The liberal belief system (shared by most conservatives today) is that all groups are equal in intellectual potential; and therefore blacks' lower achievement relative to whites can only be explained by some external factor, which always boils down to white racism or to a white failure to "do enough" for blacks. And so we keep turning society upside down trying to close a racial gap that can't be closed--and when we can't close it, it's still blamed on white racism.

The only cure for this insanity is to speak the truth, which is that blacks on average are significantly less intelligent than whites, and that, while some improvement in black achievement would be possible if illegitimacy were lowered and cultural and educational standards raised, there's nothing that anyone can do to eliminate the gap completely. It is simply unrealistic to expect that all groups achieve at the same level.

Some of the posters here who are stating truths better be wary, some of the more 'liberal' L-Dotters are going to get mighty huffy,,, as some of you have already noticed.

"some of the more 'liberal' L-Dotters"

I expect you would have to include President Bush--notable for his strong anti-racist views--in that category. If I have to choose I'll side with the President over racists--LDotters or not--any day of the week.

That said, the issue should be discussed. A hundred years ago it was the Irish that everyone called stupid, and they more or less fulfilled those expectations. But there is a huge difference between discussing the bell curve phenomenon and using it as a cover for depraved racist views which have no place in the modern conservative movement.

Oh this is dumb! My first inclination (aside from laughing at the absurdity of this) is to ask why is it necessary to compare blacks to *everyone* else? And that's just what they are doing. Under the label "white" are not only Europeans (often which stretch the label quite a bit), but also Asians (which *really* stretches the label). This is ludicrous! Why don't they run a test to see if Italians are smarter than the rest of the world? (Which of course they would be but that's not the point! ) These kinds of "studies" are completely useless and only serve to divide blacks from everyone else. (The division that civil liberties groups are *supposed* to fight for but never do.)

And secondly, an IQ test doesn't always tell a whole lot about an individual's intelligence. I've met many "gate" kids that are about as intelligent as a toad. Yet I know several people who didn't do well in grade school but are in fact excellent physicists. It's not really how high your IQ is, it's what you do with it.

Theognis-

Social sciences substitute statistical control for experimental control. It's science.

If you get past the physics I can do (mass, friction, momentum, springs and waves and all the other stuff you learn as an undergrad) and get into the what a physicist is doing in academia, there is probably more "science" going on in the political science department.

Some fools can't see the forest because of the trees.

Ok, you're determined to godown this path, let's examine some historical perspective.

George Washington Carver, an uneducated former slave is virtually single-handedly responsible for not only the dicovery of peanuts as a food, but for an additional 250 uses for peanuts. He also went on to found Tuskeegee University.

Black settlements at the turn of the last century up to around the mid-to-late 1920s had their own schools systems and business communties. Graduates of these schools were on par with and occasionally exceeded the academic skills of some of the best white schools. Among the topics these black students mastered were Latin, Calculus and the Humanities.

Since the middle of the last century, blacks have been consistently told that they were downtrodden and oppressed by whites. Psychologists have conducted multiple studies proving the effects of environment on the individual. When you are told everyday by black 'leaders' that your problems are caused by white oppressors, eventually you start to believe it.

Blacks and whites are equally clever, but blacks have been victimized by their racist 'leaders'.

As a group, whites have a higher IQ than blacks, likewise, as a group Asians have a higher IQ than whites. I'm not one bit Asian, but I have no problem accepting this fact. Having a higher IQ may make one more refined, or even smarter, it doesn't make one better.

To stick ones head in the sand and refuse to acknowlege or accept a proven fact won't make the fact less true or for that matter, go away.

Thank you #47.

I might add I look forward with great anticipation to a day when we can all believe the words written in our own Declaration of Independence: that "all men are created equal". Sadly, I do not expect this day to occur in my lifetime...

Some thoughts:
Everyone knows "Affirmative Action" gets less qualified minorities into colleges. No argument with it, just that it exists. So why isn't there "Affirmative Action" to get less qualified white athletes on college teams?

Look for IQ tests to be done away with.
When "studies" are counter to what the Left believes (Global warning, waning Ozone layer), they pass legislation to make them illegal and to silence the opposition.

Interesting that this study was done in Britain NOT America; we're supposed to be the Racists of the world.

Don't know (or care) whether blacks are as smart as whites or whites are as smart as Asians or that "white men can't jump". We need to find a way to coexist and celebrate each other's qualities whatever they are.

Sorry that people didn't like my post. But many others have affirmed what I was trying to say. It is instantly frustrating when you get a "customer service representative" on the phone who can barely articulate standard English, who cannot comprehend the nature of the problem you are dealing with, and then you are forced to deal with the supervisor who by and large is SMARTER than the affirmative-action rep. This happens all the time in so many instances I cannot tell you. Some people have no business being in the jobs they are in but they are there because of their skin color, not because of their "innate ability." Now, THAT's racism if you ask me. Of course we have a few exceptions like Carver, Duke Ellington, Rice, Powel, but it is obvious they are in a MINORITY in their race. Why is this so hard to speak openly and honestly about?

I notice that many here, who would vehemently
deny being socialist, nonetheless, through
their angry defense of a human equality that
they cannot prove. It is really scary, almost
like listening to a marxist blabber on about
the means of production.

I've mentioned before that no one gets upset
when we admit that one person's voice is
superior to anothers and that they were
simply born with that gift. We even laugh at
our own poor singing if poor singers we be.

High intelligence is like a good voice in
that one is simply born with it. It can be
developed if it is there but absent it being
their you are simply screwed genetically. It
would be interesting to see if singing ability is unequally distributed amongst
human populations.

We have to recognize human intelligence as
a wonderful gift because our advance as a
species depends on those with high horsepower
brains not those who can only work hard. In
financial terms it is called ROI. Rather than
waste the scarcest resource of all, superior
human intellect by attempting to see that all
are given an equal share of top education we
maximize our ROI by limiting it to those who
are best able to use it.

1- You need to read up on the difference between "statistical significance" and "substantive significance".

2- The Bell Curve claims a 15 point differential in *mean* IQ between white and black (fuzzy on the definitions but let's go with it anyway). I have at least 15 points on you. When are you reimbursing me for the money our society wasted trying to educate you?

3- If you understood the distribution of data you'd understand that *mean* means very little in many cases. It certainly does not dictate policy.

4- There is a little concept in our Constitution says we are created equal. That only means in the eyes of the law. But it also means that a black kid ought to be given every chance to apply himself and get ahead of lazy people with higher IQs.

If you would deny him that shot, you need to remind me to stand the heck away from you on Judgement Day. I hear lightening can richochet.

To Poster 53:

What has anyone in this thread said about denying anyone a shot to apply himself? That's a false issue. Nobody is being denied a shot in this society. Instead, people are being given jobs and places in higher education that they would not have been given except for the fact that they are black or Hispanic. At the University Indiana Law School, the whites who are admitted are at the 80th percentile nationally in LSAT scores, the blacks being admitted are at the 30th percentile. I assure you that no white person at the 30th percentile is being admitted. If you have no problem with whites in the 30th percentile being rejected, why do you support blacks in the 30th percentile being admitted? This is all about giving unearned benefits to blacks, in order to create an artificial equality of results. Is THAT the kind of equality you believe in--and which you think people will be sent to hell for opposing?

To give an idea of what's really happening in the name of equality, here is Robert H. Heidt, a law professor and former admissions officer at Indiana University Law School in Bloomington, describing his school’s minority preference policies: "In my four years on the admissions committee, routinely leapfrogging minority applicants over so many dramatically more qualified non-minority applicants, foul is how our affirmative action policy came to feel. Seeing the photographs and reading the record and personal statements of non-minority applicants whom we rejected in order to admit the far less qualified left me feeling as though I should wash. Eventually, I could not acquiesce in this policy any longer."

Larry, check out the remedial reading class at your local Junior College.

--Rather than waste the scarcest resource of all, superior human intellect by attempting to see that all are given an equal share of top education we maximize our ROI by limiting it to those who are best able to use it.--

THAT was poster #52. I posted #53. This isn't hard.

I don't support affirmative action. The poster in #52 is well known on threads of this sort and he usually posts things even dumber than what he posted today.

I would never suggest that anyone be denied
the opportunity to apply their talents to
whatever they wish to apply them to.

But many are being denied that chance because
the supply of, say , medical school slots is
not infinite. Since we have to ration the
supply we should endeavor to do it in a way
that maximizes the benefit to society as a
whole.

Most would agree that such training should
be given to those best able to master the
material, practice most competently and
advance the science for the benefit of
society. That is best achieved by competitive
examination. Thus some hard work will be
necessary even for a high IQ individual so
a lazy person with a high IQ is not a lock.

What occurs now is a grossly less qualified
person is allowed to take an obviously better
qualified persons place because of a mistaken
effort to achieve 'human equality'.

Everyone benefits when those who are most
capable are allowed to develop their talents.
One does not need to know how a cell phone
works to be able to use it but if we are to
have a society affluent enough to have cell
phones or whatever other marvels the future
may promise we cannot let quotas determine
who is best qualified.

One more point, Lar.

Try harder to keep up. When you compare LSAT scores you are looking at an *outcome*. It is perfectly reasonable to discriminate based on outcomes.

IQ, which is the topic of this thread, is an *input*.

The poster I addressed is suggesting we limit educational opportunity based on an input. Your example is based on an outcome.

#55 postulates that he knows who God will
smite and that #55 needs remedial reading
and that my comments are 'dumb'. This in
defense of his sanctimonious and incoherent
argument on behalf of an fact not in
evidence, his own superior abilities and
intellect.

One would suggest he is rather like a liberal
and would prefer to call others dumb or
consigned to damnation because, well just
because, as refutation is so damned difficult
especially when one cannot fathom the
discussion.

All this is moot. Affirmative Action is a policy of our country and will continue into perpetuity for a number of reasons, not the least is it keeps the African-Americans on the "liberal plantation" owned by "limousine liberals". Might as well rail against the wind. While conservatives and moderates don't think African-Americans are incapable of competing on a level playing feel, it is obvious THEY and the Liberal parasites who feed on them disagree.

If you do not understand the implication of your own argument (that IQ or other innate abilities be used to ration access to education) then you shouldn't make the argument.

If you think I think you are a racist pig based on this thread alone you are incorrect.

Larry jumped into a conversation about IQ, which is an input, and used an analogy to LSAT scores which are outcomes. His mistake was probably an honest one.

Your comments are so frequently offered along the same lines as above that I have come to the conclusion that yours are not a mistake.

I'd suggest you be ashamed of yourself but you appear incapable.

You're wrong, Landshark. IQ test results are highly correlated with SATs and LSATs; and they're both done the same way, by filling out little boxes on a piece of paper. Schools need some reliable objective measure to decide who will be able to do the work. There no difference in principle between rejecting applicants with low LSAT scores and rejecting applicants (which isn't done, but if it were done) with low IQ scores.

And I did refer correctly to your previous post 53, so I don't know what your complaint is about.

Would you care to prove the correlation of IQ and LSAT?

Go on, I dare you.

In NO 60, I typed "feel" when I meant "field". Sorry.

While conservatives and moderates don't think African-Americans are incapable of competing on a level playing feel[sic]

Here we go again. Someone suggesting that
they 'know' what others think.

It is unfortunately the case that blacks do
not compete effectively on a 'level playing
field' if the competition is based on mental
acuity. That is the problem and the raison
d'etre for AA.

Defenders of human mental equality ignore
or discount the empirical evidence and or
suggest that there is some unexplained but
human causation behind it. Yet, if so, they
are unable to remediate it which suggests
that whatever human causation they assume
exists they are unable to either identify
it or ameliorate it.

Wow, you really should check on that reading course.

You said, "What has anyone in this thread said about denying anyone a shot to apply himself? That's a false issue."

I then excerpted what #52 wrote.

Sheesh. If you can't buy a clue, can you at least rent one?

Look... can't we all just agree that conservatives are infinitely more clever than liberals, and move along from there...?

I'm in Mensa, so I guess that qualifies me as one of the high IQers. But I have to admit, I'm not smart enough to figure out RSVP's posts.

It's a commonplace in the literature that IQ is highly correlated with SATs. I don't remember if I've ever read specifically that the same is true of LSATs, but it only stands to reason. SATs and LSATs test similar (though obviously not identical) sets of abilities.

The debating skills and abilities of one
Landshark

1.Larry, check out the remedial reading class at your local Junior College.

2. you need to remind me to stand the heck away from you on Judgement Day. I hear lightening can richochet.

3.If you can't buy a clue, can you at least rent one?

4.he usually posts things even dumber than what he posted today.

And when all else fails he administers the
liberal's 'FINAL SOLUTION'

5. "I think you are a racist pig"

Larry, I have scored perfect scores on both tests. I have taught both of these tests and the GMAT and the GRE.

None of these is highly correlated with IQ and the LSAT doesn't even come close.

Have you ever taken an LSAT? Do you know what it tests?

What would you say if I told you my average student improved more than 8 points on the LSAT in six weeks? Look at law school admissions data. 8 points is the difference between an also-ran and a slam-dunk.

(IOW, if you score 160, don't even think about it, but if you score 168, you are a pretty sure thing. At another school, the scores may be different but the 8-point delta is still awesome.)

Are my student's innate IQs going up? Or does the test test something else?

(As an aside, I am NOT arguing the test is useless. Just that it is measuring something other than innate ability.)

Here is the 'coup de grace' for Larry.

'Larry, I have scored perfect scores on both tests. I have taught both of these tests and the GMAT and the GRE'


I am not fooled but I am amused. Everything
is here. The angry liberal invective, the
smear tactic, the arrogant self superiority.
What a piece of work you are!.

If you understood how to read in context, you'd understand that I am saying I *learned* how to make perfect scores.

Not through academic achievement, not through innate ability but through learning how to take the test.

And by the way, recognizing you for what you are doesn't make me a liberal. It simply means I can read you reply in #65:

--It is unfortunately the case that blacks do not compete effectively on a 'level playing field' if the competition is based on mental acuity.--

If you could ever get over your bias long enough to actually look at the data, you'd see that controlling for income, p[arental education and a few other salient factors explains a lot more variance than IQ ever will.

15 points on the IQ test just doesn't mean that much.

It's like saying I can bench press more weight than Darryl Jeter so therefore I must be a better shortstop. One, you aren't measuring something that is *that* critical (IQ VS. drive, I'll take drive any day) and two, the difference is not that large.

The discussion is getting further and further away from the main points which Landshark, for all his aggression, hasn't refuted: (1) that blacks consistently, on every measure of intellectual ability, perform on average substantially lower than whites; (2) that liberalism blames this on whites or society and keeps demanding that society do something to make blacks equal; but (3) that there's nothing that society, for all its mighty efforts, has been able to do to make blacks equal. This does not mean that people should not be encouraged to perform in life to the best of their abilities. It also does not mean that there is not substantial room for improvement in the black population. But the fundamental problem here is the liberal expectation and demand that all groups, as groups, shall perform equally in life. Since groups in fact are very unequal in their abilities, the attempt to make them equal can only be pursued by deeply dishonest and unjust policies such as racial preferences which corrupt our whole society and make it dangerous for anyone in a mainstream position to speak the truth.

Larry, why would I try to refute points I agree with?

Quit projecting liberalism on a guy who probably makes you look like a bleeding-heart.

--Since groups in fact are very unequal in their abilities,--

Groups, Larry? It's only liberals who talk about groups, Larry. Why don't we stick to talking about individuals?

Once more, with emphasis:

-Statistically measurable differences are different from substantive differences. The differences on *I.Q.* are measurable but not substantive.

-The distribution of data (shape of the curve-which by the way, is not necessarily unimodal) is more important than the mean in this case.

-Outcomes ARE substantially different but they aren't rooted in innate ability. (If you understand r^2, the variance is explained by a host of interrelated things like welfare dependency, lack of family structure, drug and alcohol abuse, cultural factors like a lack of support for intellectual achievement and so forth. None of that is innate, despite RSVP's yearnings to the contrary.

Now if you can read the rantings of RSVP, and he's been better behaved tonight than usual, and NOT see a guy with a serious race problem, perhpas I underestimated the problem you suffer from. A reading course might not be enough...

It is absolutely pointless to compare races,

you don't live next to a race, you don't talk to a race, you don't teach a race, you have to take every single person as an individual.

If they are stupid, fine, they could be any color and be stupid. If they are good, upstanding people; that doesn't have a color either.

Racism is treating them all as some amorphous group with a big tag and it's ALWAYS a lie no matter what the statistics say.

Arrasate in reply 76 says its pointless to compare races, since we don't experience people as races but as individuals.

Then I assume Arrasate is against our current racial preference system, which is based on the idea that blacks as a group must be made equal to whites as a group--in academic admissions and achievement, in career success, in income, in getting bank loans, even in how often they're disciplined or imprisoned. That system is based on the assumption that blacks as a group are equal in basic abilities and characteristics with whites as a group, and therefore any racial disparity in results must be caused by whites, who have the power, and must be fixed by preferences for the underrepresented group. Now, if we are against group conciousness and group preferences, how are we to OPPOSE that system except by showing that its specific assumptions and claims about racial group equality are untrue? And that requires us to compare the races as groups.

Do you understand, Arrasate?

When you argue on liberal's terms, you'll lose.

They want to look at groups, as you've noted, and any effort to stop them by comparing groups will result in failure. They will always argue that one group underperforms another due to racism.

You have to change the nature of the debate. Arguing that minor differences in IQ explain the failures or successes of millions of people is so obviously bogus that liberals paint you into the corner with kooks like sil vous plait.

Challenge their assumption about group performance and you just might win.

"Arguing that minor differences in IQ explain the failures or successes of millions of people is so obviously bogus that liberals paint you into the corner with kooks ..."

The differences are not minor. Look again at my reply 16. The percentage of blacks with IQs above the minimum threshold for academic work and professional careers is one-sixth that of whites. Then, keeping that fact in mind, consider the continuing liberal complaint that blacks are "underrepresented" in this or that field and therefore that "more needs to be done" to beef up their numbers--from ever more desperate special education efforts to diversity hiring programs to the re-programming of whites' attitudes to attacks on the white racism that is supposedly the cause of it all. And then realize that the reason for the black underrepresentation in those fields is no mystery; is not caused by discrimination; and is not curable by anything whites can do. The simple answer to this whole mess is right before our eyes, but no one want to see it because it violates the modern liberal demand for the total equality of all human groups.

The differences ARE minor.

Ask a statistician to explain standard deviations in normally distributed data. (There is no reason to believe that the two curves are shaped exactly the same except for a 15 point shift, BTW) The difference of 15 points in the mean is one half of one standard deviation.

That ain't squat.

I recall the median height of men in the U.S. is 5'10" with a standard deviation of 2 inches.

What you are in effect saying is that since black men are 1 inch shorter *on average* than white men, that explains their relative lack of ability to play basketball.

Get it? One, an inch on average isn't important and two, height is not the only factor and three, the distribution layers in complexity that looking at averages obscures.

You are making a typical mistake that people do when they look at the dependent variable and blame all of the variance on a single independent variable because they can measure a difference there.

Tell whomever you ask for help that you are arguing educational outcomes with one of Jay Greene's boys.

Nothing Landshark has said changes the fact that the percentage of blacks with IQs over 115 is one-sixth the percentage of whites. What this means is that the percentage of blacks with the intellectual potential for academic or professional careers is one-sixth that of whites. It's a straightforward point, and if Landshark wants to refute it, he needs to do more than throw around a lot of technical terms that don't add up to a cogent argument.

I'm not an expert in this field, as Landshark claims to be, but the one technical concept I am familiar with here is standard deviation. And Landshark is wrong when he says 15 IQ points is one-half a standard deviation. 15 IQ points is one standard deviation.

If the difference in average IQ is one standard deviation, then 34.13% of all blacks have higher IQ than half of all whites.

For comparison, if the average IQs were identical, half of the blacks would have higher IQ than half of the whites [and vice-versa, of course).

You didn't source your IQ data and I suspect it's bogus.

Second, there is no minimum IQ necessary for academic or proffesional work. If there were, 130 wouldn't be it.

You are correct that 15 points is a standard deviation on the most common IQ test. My bad. I'll have to go back to the Bell Curve and see what their claim was. It sticks in my head that it was half of one SD. Either way, the height analogy makes sense...

The article states, "Most notoriously of all, they have consistently revealed that blacks in Western countries score, on average, one standard deviation (15 IQ points) below the average white IQ of 100."

No, Hayakian, 16 percent (not 34 percent) of blacks are above 50 percent of whites.

By definition, 68 percent of the population represented in a bell curve is within one standard deviation of the mean. The mean white IQ is 100, and the SD for white IQ is 15. Thus, 68 percent of whites have IQ between 85 and 115, 16 percent of whites have IQ above 115, and 16 percent of whites have IQ below 85.

The mean IQ for U.S. blacks is 85. Using an SD of 15 (the SD for blacks is actually smaller than that), 68 percent of blacks have an IQ between 70 and 100, 16 percent of blacks have an IQ over 100, and 16 percent are below 70 IQ.

The picture becomes starker above IQ 130. 16 percent of whites have an IQ above 130, while only 2.3 percent of blacks have an IQ above 130.

So, the next time you see liberals agonizing over why there aren't more black PhDs, you will know the answer, even though the liberals profess not to.

I'm no math whiz, but Larry's numbers seem right and also seem to reflect the reality of our nation. A standard deviation is a big deal, that I do know, especially for a large group. Neither you or I are likely to be able to tell if one person has a 100 IQ and another has 115 as both will be capable of navigating in the world reasonably well. But a person with an 85 is enormously handicapped.

I should always make a distribution drawing before starting an analysis.

You are correct.

However, I got the numbers you cite for IQs over 130 at an IQs over 115.

To elaborate, given a million whites, and a million blacks (and accepting the statistics presented in the article as accurate) you would have:

IQ over 100
Whites - 500,000
Blacks - 158,655
IQ over 115
Whites - 158,655
Blacks - 22,750

IQ over 130
Whites - 22,750
Blacks - 1,350

I think I did it right this time.

Used Excel NORMDIST function:

1,000,000 * 1-NORMDIST(x,0,1,TRUE)

and plugged in 1, 2, and 3 for x (since 100, 115, and 130 just happen to correspond to std dev integers in this case).

To date, no athlete from India has won a medal in World/Olympic track&field or aquatics.

Because Indians are genetically incapable (as many of us believed when growing up)?

Nah.

Today's Indian national records are comparable to the World records of 1960s and 1970s. And In the last decade or so, a few Indians came very close. It is only a matter of time before they start winning.

What happened? improved training, access to modern coaching and nutrition, more opportunities to compete....

Most of what appear to be 'racial differences' can actually be explained by environmental factors.

Cont'd...

I also mentioned the increase in Japanese average height in 2 generations. Yet another supposedly 'genetic' trait proven to be environmental in reality.

So also with 'IQ'. As the article mentions, poorer the nation, lower the average IQ. And the poorest region just happens to be Sub-Saharan Africa, populated by blacks.

As noted in the 'Flynn effect', the gap between blacks and whites will close in a few decades as better nutrition and opportunities become available.

However the 'Bell curve' types argue against precisely such efforts to make opportunities available - because 'blacks are genetically inferior!'

Forget 'race' and 'genetics' and treat every person as an individual and provide opportunities. The IQ gap will soon go away.

REMINDER: No talking to each other. No attacking each other. Period.

In reply to Supersid, no one is arguing for taking opportunities away from blacks. We're saying we should stop giving blacks jobs and student admissions for which they are grossly unqualified, and stop withholding those same jobs and student admissions from people who are qualified for them. Yet that's what Supersid wants to KEEP doing, apparently until the end of time, or until the mystical Flynn effect takes hold.

As for the effects of improved nutrition, there may have been some of that in the past which may help explain an increase in IQ at the lower end of the black population. But it's questionable that that effect is still in operation. Has it not occurred to Supersid, as he walks around the shops and malls of America, that blacks in this country are not exactly deprived of nutrition?

I made a mistake in reply 85 where I said 2.3 percent of blacks and 16 percent of whites are over 130 IQ. The correct figures (as I had stated previously) are:

Over IQ 100: 16 percent of blacks, 50 percent of whites.

Over IQ 115: 2.3 percent of blacks, 16 percent of whites;

Over IQ 130: 0.4 percent of blacks, 2.3 percent of whites.

Also, Landshark writes: "there is no minimum IQ necessary for academic or proffesional work. If there were, 130 wouldn't be it."

I have repeatedly written in this thread that 115 is the minimium necessary for acacademic or professional work.

Here's a bell curve for ya -

Look at my username, that'll give you an idea of my racial heritage. Now throw in the fact that my IQ is 128. When you can figure that one out, let me know.

The supposed "institutional racism" argument in the artice is BS.

What I think is more telling is the origin of the study subjects. It not a secret that the per capita income and living conditions of afro-carribean blacks is inferior to that of developed countries. How does this affect intellectual development? (i.e., nutrition, disease, etc.)

Is the reason environmental or genetic? Is it genetic changes brought about because of environment?

I can accept the argument that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites. What I want to know is WHY.

It is sad and humorous to see the L-Staff try in vain to keep people from launching personal attacks against each other, only to be run over like Texas Roadkill. It seems emotions can override even the best of IQ's.

It is funny to hear people say "No one is saying to take oppritunites away from Blacks", then in the next breath, say in effect that Blacks are Dumber than White people, or to imply that we need to educate blacks less. The brutal fact of the matter is, Genius does not come in a nice neat little pattern. Every attempt to breed and cultivate Genius, from Aristocracy to Eugenics, has been a miserable failure. History is also full of assumptions about race that were proven quite wrong: as someone pointed out, it used to be the Irish that were called stupid, then the Italians, and then the Chinese (oops, those same people that beat Whites in IQ.) It's one thing to say affirmative action is a very counterproductive form of reverse racism, that I can agree with. But it is another to make that next step that so many apparently want to make, which is that a principal qualification for power is that the person be White. The devil is in the details.

Well, there may be environmental or cultural reasons to explain all or part of the difference, as has been pointed out.

But there may not. Just as intelligence runs in families -- with multitudinous exceptions, just as there are multitudinous racial exceptions -- intelligence within races may on average tend to be more similar than intelligence between racial groups. Why should the brain be different in kind from hair color in that respect?

Luckily, there are enough representatives of all racial groups among the very intelligent and the very unintelligent that prejudging intelligence on the basis of skin color doesn't make good sense. We'd be in trouble if it were otherwise -- and it could have been otherwise, without violating any physical laws of the universe at all.

My comment, by the way, was meant to respond to the question posed in Post #94.

Re Post #95: Isn't it interesting that white people don't seem to question the utility or "fairness" of their IQ test results, given that some groups of Asians beat them in the aggregate? I mean, every time this subject arises, the more broadminded among us -- not necessarily post #95, but those posters who think you're a racist for even daring to think about this question -- will wryly mention the Asian-European IQ differential as if that is going to get someone's goat. But it never does. Just doesn't matter. We are all individuals, and if only everyone thought that way about black people, as well, no one would give a hoot about these statistics. The differential could be permanent or not, and it just wouldn't matter.

Theognis writes:

"It is funny to hear people say 'No one is saying to take opportunities away from Blacks,' then in the next breath, say in effect that Blacks are Dumber than White people, or to imply that we need to educate blacks less."

I guess what he means is that I'm against affirmative action, which means I want to "educate blacks less."

But then Theognis says he agrees zhat "affirmative action is a very counterproductive form of reverse racism."

So, since both Theognis and I are against affirmative action, why does he accuse me of trying to "educate blacks less"? Presumably he doesn't make that same accusation against himself.

Black applicants at the 30th percentile in LSAT scores are admitted into the Indiana University Law School. Whites with the same scores are rejected. Now, would Theognis say that this an example of "educating white people less"? Of course not; no one is calling for the admission of unqualified whites to law schools, or saying that a failure to do so would mean "depriving whites of an education." Why, then, would a failure to admit unqualified blacks mean depriving blacks of an education?

Oops, my earlier post was meant to respond to Post #93, not #94, if anyone cares.

I wrote : Forget 'race' and 'genetics' and treat every person as an individual.... How does anyone get the idea from that that .....that's what Supersid wants to KEEP doing.... I am an 'Ayn Randian', as far from 'groups' as you can get.

Read this article. It was posted earlier today but deleted as 'old'. Rich, Black, Flunking. It explains how underachievement can be explained by cultural environment.

No amount of interventions can help those who do not want to accept responsibility and help themselves.

The basic point I want to make is: 'racial' gaps in achievement can in most cases be explained by remediable causes. They are not 'genetic' and irremediable. Thus there is reason to hope that even the sub-saharan Africans will soon learn to manage their affairs as well as Westreners.

VS Naipaul wrote of two families where he was growing up in Trinidad. The two were neighbours, illiterate laborers living in thatched-roof huts. One was Afro-Carrebian. The other was brought in from India. Both were comparable in every way.

The Indian family made enormous sacrifices and made sure the children went to school (eg. go without food for themselves but make sure the kids had school supplies). By the second generation, the Indian family moved into a 'house' while the other stayed in the hut. By the third generation, one kid from the Indian family graduated from medical school and immigrated to USA. The other family was in its 3rd generation of laboring in the fields.

The difference family environment and culture makes.

And my point is: We should accept the fact that that may not be true. I don't see any persuasive reason to believe it is true, other than that we would all like for it to be true.

I, myself, would like for it to be true, but I recognize that desire as a symptom of group-think.

Supersid wrote:

"As noted in the 'Flynn effect', the gap between blacks and whites will close in a few decades as better nutrition and opportunities become available.

"However the 'Bell curve' types argue against precisely such efforts to make opportunities available - because 'blacks are genetically inferior!'"

Since he was saying that I wanted to take away certain opportunities from blacks, and since the only thing I had talked about taking away was affirmative action and racial preferences, the logical conclusion was that Supersid wanted affirmative action to be continued.

So, what precisely is it that Sid thinks the "bell curve types" want to take away from blacks?

Doesn't it occur to Supersid that the two families, starting out in exactly the same physical environment and ending up so differently, might have pursued such radically different courses because of innate differences? That's the way the story strikes me.

If the cultural traits that lead to poverty and backwardness are so persistent and require such extraordinary outside intervention to overcome, doesn't it seem at least possible that the cultural traits are, at least in part, an expression of innate qualities? Did Israel, Greece, Rome, France, Britain, the United States, require remedial efforts by well-meaning outsiders in order to get their civilizations going? Why, then, do some peoples need remediation and others don't?

If Supersid rejects this possibility, let me ask him this: If it turned out that there were indeed intrinisic differences of civilizational aibilities among different groups, what would that mean to him? How would it affect or change his world view?

As I recall from Dinesh D'Souza's book among
others is that the IQ gap between black and
white is even wider when the comparison is
made between Africans and Europeans.Almost
double if memory serves me well.

Therefore some might attribute the Flynn
effect to be operative here though it could
as well be attributed to genetics since there
is obviously significant amounts of European
blood in American blacks.

As the definition of race is largely self
applied in America any study of our group
differences will have a large degree of
inaccuracy especially as it pertains to the
'black' population where the 'one drop rule'
often applies even today.

Thus the small number of high IQ blacks that
Larry's relative percentiles reveal may even
be smaller than that if one were to screen
out blacks with a large non black genetic
component. Arthur Jensen once proposed to
do something just like that with the faculty
of Howard University. His efforts were
rebuffed.

Me,I'm a B student,good worker with effort,Could test high,but to this day,still not so bright.Anyhow it not that white people are smarter,it is there are more smart white people as a percentage of the white of the white race.Black people have some brilliant minds as well,but a much smaller percentage in their race.Why is question,easy is the answer.White people were raised in the cold,brain power was the only way to survive.If you did not perpare for winter you died.Those that lived married,and breed.The African always had plenty bananas to eat,plenty of food without effort,without fore thought.No winter no death.White people are infinitely more neurotic than blacks,why not cooped up with brains waiting on winter to end.You didn't have to be to smart or "clever"to survive in Africa.

"You didn't have to be to smart or "clever" to survive in Africa."

Africans had to survive in a land that is arid over much of it's area, and do so with the presence of wild carnivorous animals. Despite this, they managed to domesticate cattle, and create a predominately agricultural society despite the climactic challenges they faced.

No, they didn't have to be clever or smart to do that...

Using that logic, one would assume that we Americans must be the dumbest people on earth.

Thread 2