What do you consider more important.....

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Time and time again IQ tests have established that blacks always underperform whites in IQ tests.

Where do you get this propaganda from? Always? That is not true, and I wish you knew that.

That exceptions to the rule exist does not in any way disqualify the rule.

It absolutely qualifies for disqualification, because you are not considering why so many Asians score so much lower than the lowest educated African Americans, or why so many African Americans score much higher than so many whites, or why so many whites score much higher than so many Asians. All of the exceptions have reasons. You're just not looking at them, resorting instead to the easiest possible conclusion, namely that it is only, and only, a biological factor.

Moreover, while you do not agree with the definition of high civilization or high culture, it remains that most of the worlds contributions have been a result of the Caucasian and Asian races, with Africa and blacks having a horrible track record.

I think Africans, out of all things, have contributed more to music around the globe, including classical music (many white composers were inspired by African music), than any other race in the world.

Such an observation and statement is not racist, contrary to what you may think, but it is the simple and sublime truth.

You clearly need a few more years of growth before speaking so confidently about truth.

Currently conventional wisdom informs us that there is no such thing as race, although there can be racists (one wonders how racists can exist if there are no races).

No one denies the reality of different races. Instead, there is an "opportunity for all" policy, and I don't see what is wrong with that. As long as people like you continue to believe that nothing can come out of these so-called lower class of men, and you don't even try to do anything about, the situation will indeed never change. Have you ever tried to educate blacks? What came out of it? Did they learn more than you expected? Are they able to score higher now on Western-designed IQ-tests than before you started teaching them? What if you had been born and raised into a rabiz environment that did not promote and support education? How far from the tree would you have fallen?

[jgk3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

hey, I like where this is going...

And don't tell me you're not guilty of "choosing to measure" or analyze particular traits and circumstances in this whole issue Anonymouse. We all do this, when we try to make a point. If you really wanted to, you'd take into account that Sub-Saharan Africa was pretty much closed off from Eurasia except for brief periods when they'd have foreign relations with Greeks, Indians, Chinese and Arabs, where their cultures flourished. Finally their geopolitical positions in the world would not be so isolated from Eurasia, and they'd use foreign ideas to their advantage. Look at the Nubians, the kingdoms of West Africa and Greater Zimbabwe. If we allowed those cultures to flourish up till this point, that continent would be much more than a pile of xxxx run by military dictatorships that aren't going anywhere.

Africans who don't know about their historical past, and the various "golden ages" they've experienced with this civilization, will have an inferiority complex and will not be able to compete with the same mentality as us whites, who most of the time, have much more opportunity to inquire about our glorious ancestors. (I'm not talking about intelligence here, I'm talking about attitude).

The African civilization is seen by us westerners as completely worthless, and our attitudes have a negative effect on blacks living here. I'm not saying we have to blindly embrace all these socialistic ideologies as you put them, but we should experiment and see what would happen if we changed all this. Instead of telling everyone that we're all equal, we can instruct everyone about the history of their indigenous or semi-indigenous civilizations. You're a proud Armenian, you know what kind of effect that has on our day to day attitude.

Even without those influences from abroad, Africa had societies that have perfected their own justice systems, migration routes, etc... over thousands of years. They had their own realm, and now, because so many have forgotten about it, there's a void inside of them. If you so badly want to get rid of them without genociding, you're gonna have to give them the resources to rebuild this realm they've had since the dawn of man. No one wants to do such a thing. It's like asking the Turks to give us our lands back, except at a much larger scale, because we're speaking of entire continents here.

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

You don't need a study for that. Open your eyes and use your brain.

I taught lower class kids in bad schools for quite some time. These kids are not stupid. Most of them anyway. They are just not motivated. When all your life you hear that you're stupid, that you have no chance, that no one believes in you, you will score much lower than a kid who hears the exact opposite. I'm not smart. I'm certainly not a genius. I was not born with an extraordinary brain. Yet, I'm a university graduate. How do you explain that?
...
Finally, there is absolutely a correlation, because the few cases that we have unfortunately witnessed of children who had been isolated and did not have any contact with the outside world, did not exactly turn out to be intelligent in the IQ-test way. They never learned to speak, read or write properly, and usually had severe psychological problems to boot. If intelligence was merely biological, we would be able to pass an IQ test without any social contact, without any education, and without any parental contact. We can't even survive for the first eighteen years of our life without external help, and for some people even longer. How are we going to become super-intelligent without at least some external guidance?

Yes, you absolutely do need a study for it. Without employing the scientific method, it is not science, but an anecdote. If not given a an attempt to be studied in an unbiased way, you cannot say that it does indeed exist.

What you're describing is class and "the self-fulfilling prophecy" phenomenon (which does have studies to back it up by the way), but I fail to see your connection.

How would you even be able to measure intelligence of someone who doesn't understand you?! Again, this does not relate to the issue at hand. The other part of that incidently, is the lack of interaction. As, I said before, stimulation and interaction is necessary at a young age to increase the number of neural connections in the brian.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

Yes, you absolutely do need a study for it. Without employing the scientific method, it is not science, but an anecdote. If not given a an attempt to be studied in an unbiased way, you cannot say that it does indeed exist.

What you're describing is class and "the self-fulfilling prophecy" phenomenon (which does have studies to back it up by the way), but I fail to see your connection.

How would you even be able to measure intelligence of someone who doesn't understand you?! Again, this does not relate to the issue at hand. The other part of that incidently, is the lack of interaction. As, I said before, stimulation and interaction is necessary at a young age to increase the number of neural connections in the brian.

You say it yourself that stimulation and interaction is necessary, so why are you disagreeing with me? You were born in the right environment. Call yourself lucky. Nothing more, nothing less. If you happened to have done slightly better than the class average, call yourself a bookworm or a nerd. If you have waded through school very easily, without much problems, and have scored way above average on an IQ-test, then maybe you can start talking biology. Until then, there is no point talking about objective scientific tests.

Call my experience anecdote if you like, but the results proved more than any scientist could have proven in some lab with DNA samples. My students scored on average three points above their school average and above the national average for my subject. This shouldn't come as a surprise because I was teaching them AP material at one point, something that no teacher at that school, or anyone else outside of that school believed would be possible with these kids. Test their IQ now, instead of a few years ago when they did not have the right coaching, and see the immense difference. No, I do not need subjective tests made by so-called scientists who have never left their labs and seen what life is made of. I can tell for myself how much influence a single change of attitude can have.

I think jgk3 said it very well. Before scientists begin to seriously consider the environmental factor, we should be very weary of so-called objective biological tests.

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

You say it yourself that stimulation and interaction is necessary, so why are you disagreeing with me? You were born in the right environment. Call yourself lucky. Nothing more, nothing less. If you happened to have done slightly better than the class average, call yourself a bookworm or a nerd. If you have waded through school very easily, without much problems, and have scored way above average on an IQ-test, then maybe you can start talking biology. Until then, there is no point talking about objective scientific tests.

Call my experience anecdote if you like, but the results proved more than any scientist could have proven in some lab with DNA samples. My students scored on average three points above their school average and above the national average for my subject. This shouldn't come as a surprise because I was teaching them AP material at one point, something that no teacher at that school, or anyone else outside of that school believed would be possible with these kids. Test their IQ now, instead of a few years ago when they did not have the right coaching, and see the immense difference. No, I do not need subjective tests made by so-called scientists who have never left their labs and seen what life is made of. I can tell for myself how much influence a single change of attitude can have.

I think jgk3 said it very well. Before scientists begin to seriously consider the environmental factor, we should be very weary of so-called objective biological tests.

Don't insult me please. There's no need for this arrogance and rudeness. I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you say if I have an above average IQ I can talk about biology. Previously you said to open my eyes and use by brain. Are you saying that unless I am myself intelligent, that I am somehow not qualified to discuss this topic?
If that is the case then please note that my IQ is >99th percentile, so don't dismiss what I am saying. Also, since you seem to be bringing up the subject ... You may be a teacher and good for you, but your liberal arts knowledge and degree hardly qualifies you to tell me, a doctoral student in a scientific discipline (psychology), what is and isn't science and to evaluate the research.

You haven't even included the essential information in your own anecdote. They scored 3 points higher on what? Don't you think stating what your measurement variable (dependent variable) is is important information to include? If you had any training in science or had read actual research articles, you'd know what the basic things to include are.


The fact that you're talking about DNA samples, indicates that you don't know what you're talking about. There has been no "intelligence" gene identified, but estimates from researches have been right around 70% heritability (some as high as 80%).
You're not picking up what I'm putting down here. I am agreeing that while there is a strong biological influence, environmental factors can be influencial as well, but to a lesser extent.
Interestingly as well though, the research has shown that while people are younger, enivornment seems to be more influencial, but into adulthood it appears that biology is more important. This has been supported by the correlation between siblings and monozygotic twins that are reared about having more similar IQs in adulthood than they did in childhood.
You call the scientific research subjective? They make all the efforts required to be called "scientific" in order to be as objective as possible.

Further, Anonymouse is quite correct that there are indeed racial differences. I initially questioned that myself as you can see earlier in the thread because I thought I had read somewhere that this gap had closed in more recent times, but I checked and while the difference isn't as high as it used to be (15 points), there is still a difference.

However when aptitude scores are compared on college students, there's not a difference, interestingly.

I don't know why it's so difficult to think there are group differences. People have no problems recognizing that different breeds of dogs have varying intelligence and temprement.

Please keep in mind that correlation doesn't mean causation and I don't think anyone's claimed that here.

I have administered and scored intelligence tests and having seen every item on there, while they may not be totally culture fair, there's nothing on them that would be biased for white or black people who have lived in the US.

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

You may be a teacher and good for you, but your liberal arts knowledge and degree hardly qualifies you to tell me, a doctoral student in a scientific discipline (psychology), what is and isn't science and to evaluate the research.

The fact that you don't take my observation seriously, tested in real life with real life students, shows what a doctoral scientist you are. Do you have to be in a labcoat behind glass to observe that academic achievement (if that is one way to measure intelligence) is the result of mostly environmental factors? That I have broken every prejudice and every scientific diagnosis made of my students (ADHD, dyslexic, brain damage, etc.)?

You haven't even included the essential information in your own anecdote. They scored 3 points higher on what?

On their final national exam, which is designed and graded by an external examinor.

I am agreeing that while there is a strong biological influence, environmental factors can be influencial as well, but to a lesser extent.

You're disagreeing, because what I am trying to say is that it is the exact opposite.

Variable is this: you come from an extremely bad neighborhood that does not stimulate education, your parents are low educated or not educated at all, your school is way below national standard and does not teach that which you should learn or you have never received any form of formal or informal education, and then score in the top 2% on your first attempt at taking a standardized IQ-test. Then you can talk about how strong the biological factor is. Until then, have a bit more faith in the environmental factor and don't underestimate the power of stimulation, support, encouragement, and general belief. As a psychologist, I should assume you know this better than me.

Interestingly as well though, the research has shown that while people are younger, enivornment seems to be more influencial, but into adulthood it appears that biology is more important. This has been supported by the correlation between siblings and monozygotic twins that are reared about having more similar IQs in adulthood than they did in childhood.

You're still ignoring the environmental factor. How does this test show that environment plays no role, or only a very small role?

Further, Anonymouse is quite correct that there are indeed racial differences. I initially questioned that myself as you can see earlier in the thread because I thought I had read somewhere that this gap had closed in more recent times, but I checked and while the difference isn't as high as it used to be (15 points), there is still a difference.

Who are these people??

I don't know why it's so difficult to think there are group differences. People have no problems recognizing that different breeds of dogs have varying intelligence and temprement.

You're comparing dogs to human beings?? They teach you to do that??

I have administered and scored intelligence tests and having seen every item on there, while they may not be totally culture fair, there's nothing on them that would be biased for white or black people who have lived in the US.

Except for the fact that they are designed according to white principles, having been invented and supported by whites on top.

[Siggie]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

The fact that you don't take my observation seriously, tested in real life with real life students, shows what a doctoral scientist you are.

Yes, an excellent one thank you. You're in the perfect position to judge eh?
Also, good enough to be able to see the inconsistency with between your observations and what you claim. Keep reading for explanation.

Do you have to be in a labcoat behind glass to observe that academic achievement (if that is one way to measure intelligence) is the result of mostly environmental factors? That I have broken every prejudice and every scientific diagnosis made of my students (ADHD, dyslexic, brain damage, etc.)?

You have a very flawed view of what we do. We don't wear lab coats and watch people behind glass. Give me a break. What do you mean you've broken scientific diagnoses like ADHD, dyslexia, etc? You mean that you've successfully taught people with those problems? That's not an impossibility and may I say, as a person with ADD, we can still be very intelligent.

On their final national exam, which is designed and graded by an external examinor.

That's great that you're an excellent teacher. Seriously, kudos to you. However, that test is a test of achievement and not intelligence. Neither I nor anyone else have claimed that any group is unteachable or incapable of performing well. You're making claims about intelligence and providing anecdotal evidence about achievement. These are not the same!

You're disagreeing, because what I am trying to say is that it is the exact opposite.

Variable is this: you come from an extremely bad neighborhood that does not stimulate education, your parents are low educated or not educated at all, your school is way below national standard and does not teach that which you should learn or you have never received any form of formal or informal education, and then score in the top 2% on your first attempt at taking a standardized IQ-test. Then you can talk about how strong the biological factor is. Until then, have a bit more faith in the environmental factor and don't underestimate the power of stimulation, support, encouragement, and general belief. As a psychologist, I should assume you know this better than me.

Well, the research contradicts that. So, sorry, but your belief is completely unsupported. You can repeat your view as much as you'd like, you can shout it from the rooftops, etc but it doesn't make it true.

You're still ignoring the environmental factor. How does this test show that environment plays no role, or only a very small role?

I've already told you how it shows that. Even twins that reared in by parents in different socioeconomic classes show a very highly correlated IQ and that correlation only increases in adulthood. I don't know how I can explain that more clearly.

Who are these people??

Do you want me to give you citations to support it? I challenge you to give me some that support that there isn't a difference.
There's nothing racist about it. For sake of an example... Women live an average of 7 (or somethign like that) years longer than men. That still tells us nothing about an individual because an individual can fall anywhere in the distribution.

You're comparing dogs to human beings?? They teach you to do that??

Yes, I am. What's the problem? Are we not animals?

Except for the fact that they are designed according to white principles, having been invented and supported by whites on top.

Did you not read what I said at all? How can it be biased to blacks who have been in the US for generations and were educated in the US?

[Sip]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

I don't know about intelligence and IQ but all my research has shown is that there are a LOT of dumb asses out there in the world and "dumb assity" doesn't seem to stop at racial boundaries. I've seen too many idiots of all kinds ... whether it be Chinese, Mexican, Armenian, Turkish, Persian, European, Affrican, and even fully mixed, there is always one dumber than the other.

[Otto3]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

you are right sip

[tunot]

Re: What do you consider more important.....

You have a very flawed view of what we do. We don't wear lab coats and watch people behind glass. Give me a break. What do you mean you've broken scientific diagnoses like ADHD, dyslexia, etc? You mean that you've successfully taught people with those problems? That's not an impossibility and may I say, as a person with ADD, we can still be very intelligent.

Then what exactly is intelligence and how do you guys measure it?

Well, the research contradicts that. So, sorry, but your belief is completely unsupported. You can repeat your view as much as you'd like, you can shout it from the rooftops, etc but it doesn't make it true.

What research?

I've already told you how it shows that. Even twins that reared in by parents in different socioeconomic classes show a very highly correlated IQ and that correlation only increases in adulthood. I don't know how I can explain that more clearly.

You haven't shown me the path to adulthood. What sort of factors played a role there?

Do you want me to give you citations to support it? I challenge you to give me some that support that there isn't a difference.

I don't care about citations. Give me your experience, your research.

Yes, I am. What's the problem? Are we not animals?

Not when it comes to the brain, Miss Shrink. And not even when it comes to the body. Stop making silly comparisons that really only weaken your argument as a scientist, let alone a psychologist.

Did you not read what I said at all? How can it be biased to blacks who have been in the US for generations and were educated in the US?

Because, maybe you haven't noticed in your field research (not sure if they still teach you that sort of stuff), that schools in America are still extremely skewed and that blacks have only very recently started receiving formal education after being enslaved into believing that they were worthless for over three centuries. Give them some time. You yourself said that the difference was already much smaller. Is that not an indication in itself to leave dog breeds aside and concentrate on how to educate more people in America the way they should have the right to be educated? We don't need Phd's everywhere. We need to get kids off the streets and out of criminal behavior. Start working on that, psychologist, instead of creating and supporting biased tests that will ensure the present situation to continue and even grow worse.

FYI, I have a friend who recently got her Phd in Clinical Psychology. She has a major problem with IQ tests as well. Currently she's working on helping "lost" teenage kids find their way back into society again. That's what I call psychology.