re: The possibilities, no matter how unwelcome they may be.

Suppose you were to learn that we blacks are, in fact, stupid, or that we have some other, similar trait, but one which shows us to be quite nearly the opposite of lacking-in-initiative, and which makes it necessary for you to continue to care for us, perhaps even as though we were museum pieces. Eternally.

Think "black pearl."

OneTokeUnder:

re: The possibilities, no matter how unwelcome they may be.

Suppose you were to learn that we blacks are, in fact, stupid, or that we have some other, similar trait, but one which shows us to be quite nearly the opposite of lacking-in-initiative, and which makes it necessary for you to continue to care for us, perhaps even as though we were museum pieces. Eternally.

Think "black pearl."

"We blacks?" Oh, come on. None of even the most controversial IQ research denies that at least half of all blacks in America have intelligence in the normal range, many even above average, with a few blacks being very much above average.

Of course, the thought that 50% of blacks might fall below the normal intelligence range (i.e., below 85 IQ) with no remedy in sight is indeed depressing, but wishful thinking won't help. And if, as the defenders of slavery argued, some sort of paternalistic institution to take care of them is inevitable, then we have to come up with an honest solution. (The anti-abolitionists' claim that blacks lacked the intellectual and emotional maturity to be responsible with firearms is something that even Jesse Jackson and the NAACP seem to agree with these days. This was one of the key motivations for the Dred Scot decision on the citizenship of freed blacks.)

It certainly doesn't mean the anti-abolitionists were justified in treating _all_ blacks as sub-normal. Nor does it justify treating private citizens of other races as eternal children (as gun-controllers would have the government do).

I still pray that merely cultural differences account for the low IQ scores. Then we can argue over which needs changing, the IQ test or the culture it discriminates against -- a culture which seems to be equally discriminated against by life's own informal but inescapable natural tests.

Because if the IQ test is culturally discriminatory, it is so in the same sense that the laws against theft and murder are culturally discriminatory.

I didn't really expect you to say something sort of profound on the subject of cultural bias in psychological testing. But you did.

fsilber:

"Because if the IQ test is culturally discriminatory, it is so in the same sense that the laws against theft and murder are culturally discriminatory."

And when the IQ test is culturally discriminatory in the same sense that [enforcement of] the laws against theft and murder are culturally discriminatory, you've just magnified the predictive relationship between your test and your outcome measure.

Think about it. Cultural bias magnifies predictive power in a biased culture.

And the band played on.

fsilber,

I still pray that merely cultural differences account for the low IQ scores.

Your prayers will be answered in the same manner as all other prayers.

Then we can argue over which needs changing, the IQ test or the culture it discriminates against --

IQ tests do not discriminate by breeding group. Whites score lower than Asians because Asians are smarter than whites, not because the tests are wrong. Ashkenazi Jews score higher than any other breeding group because they are statistically smarter than any other breeding group, not because IQ tests discriminate against Asians, Latinos, and blacks.

Culture has nothing to do with it. This has been shown by numerous carefully constructed studies and by the measurement of heritability. The only social factor that influences intelligence has no lasting effect. It is the family environment. Whatever it is, it has a measurable component in children. That component vanishes in the teen years and never returns.

Because if the IQ test is culturally discriminatory,

It is not culturally or racially discriminatory.

Whats shocking to me, more than the possiblity of genetic tags for low intelligence in specific races, is how quick people are ready to really embrace this as a possiblity, under the guise of "well if science tells us, we must be brave and accept it." Bullshit. With such cultural discrimination in testing, in daily life!!! how can we expect that any of these results haven't been skewed.

In my own daily life, if anything, blacks have been by and large smarter at work, in social circles. Like the blacks int he Star Wars universe, they seem to rise to the top.

This is bullshit, don't worry about it.

"Because if the IQ test is culturally discriminatory,

It is not culturally or racially discriminatory.
"

Youve just shown your own ingnorance I'm afraid. Cultural bias in a test doesn't necc mean that questions are restricted to subjects that one group might be more familiar with.

IQ doesn't test intelligence. Why else would IQ drop in most people (an average of 10-30 points), even as they become more educated? IQ tests measure reception to learning. And reception to learning, as most educators will tell you, is about ATTITUDE.

I have no doubt Jews and Asians score higher on average than whites. The cultural attitude towards intelligence and education is very open and positive in those cultures. What I would like to see is a study of blacks, say for example, versus blacks adopted and raised by other cultures. That would actually tell us something.

Guess what? IT WAS DONE and blacks raised by asian and jewish families from infancy scroed higher on IQ tests on average than blacks raised by their own people.

The meaning? It's a cultural attitude towards learning that affects IQ more than any other factor.

GeneralDisarray:

I didn't really expect you to say something sort of profound on the subject of cultural bias in psychological testing. But you did.

fsilber:

"Because if the IQ test is culturally discriminatory, it is so in the same sense that the laws against theft and murder are culturally discriminatory."

And when the IQ test is culturally discriminatory in the same sense that [enforcement of] the laws against theft and murder are culturally discriminatory, you've just magnified the predictive relationship between your test and your outcome measure.

Think about it. Cultural bias magnifies predictive power in a biased culture.

I don't doubt that the enforcement of laws are culturally discriminatory. For example, I've seen cases in which mischievous / drunken Tulane University frat boys were given passes when caught in some small-scale acts of theft or vandalism, on the grounds that "A prosecution could ruin their whole lives!" (As contrasted with the prosecution of a youth who already has a criminal record, and not much in the way of skills or ambition.)

However, I was talking about the discriminatory aspect to the laws themselves. For example, because a much higher proportion of American blacks commit murder (as compared with whites), any law against murder is going to have a de-facto racially discriminatory effect. (This is despite the fact that among blacks a higher proportion of murderers get away with it -- due to the "don't snitch" ethic and the realistic threat of violence against witnesses).

Likewise, the laws against robbery discriminate against cultures that treat robbery as no big deal, and in favor of cultures that view the prospect sticking up a stranger on the street or breaking into his house to take his stuff as simply unthinkable.

That is, to the extent IQ tests are culturally discriminatory, it is that they discriminate against lesser cultures.

Youve just shown your own ingnorance I'm afraid. Cultural bias in a test doesn't necc mean that questions are restricted to subjects that one group might be more familiar with.

Don't you feel somewhat embarrased by injecting the word "ignorance," but not knowing how to spell it?

IQ tests produce results that are confirmed by biological measurements, such as reaction time, inspection time, and a variety of electroencephalography techniques (see the work of Schafer). IQ test results are also consistent with the variance in the volumes of cognitive centers in the brain. This single parameter accounts for half of the total variance in intelligence. Biological measurements apply within group and between group.

IQ doesn't test intelligence.

IQ doesn't test anything. IQ is the product of an IQ test. IQ tests measure intelligence because they are able to measure g.

Why else would IQ drop in most people (an average of 10-30 points), even as they become more educated?

Please cite your source. IQ does not decline as a function of education.

IQ tests measure reception to learning. And reception to learning, as most educators will tell you, is about ATTITUDE.

IQ tests measure two parameters. One matters and the other does not. The two are g and group factors. IQ accounts for more of the variance in academic success than any other measurement. It certainly does not account for all of the variance.

I have no doubt Jews and Asians score higher on average than whites. The cultural attitude towards intelligence and education is very open and positive in those cultures.

Cultural attitude has nothing to do with it. Asians adopted by white families reach adulthood with higher IQs (statistically) than their adoptive parents and with IQs that match those of their biological peers. Culture is not a factor in intelligence. Genetics determines about 80% of the variance in adult intelligence. This can be measured by multiple, unrelated methods.

What I would like to see is a study of blacks, say for example, versus blacks adopted and raised by other cultures. That would actually tell us something.

Please read the transracial adoption study by Weinberg and Scarr.

Guess what? IT WAS DONE and blacks raised by asian and jewish families from infancy scroed higher on IQ tests on average than blacks raised by their own people.

This is precisely what was found at age 7. When retested at age 17, the blacks had IQ that were unrelated to their adoptive parents or to their adoptive siblings. The adopted blacks had IQs that were no different than those of their non-adopted peers.

The meaning?

The meaning is that you have not studied the results carefully and are lost in this discussion.

I liked your "social integration" answer a lot better. Remember that one? Where you posited that social integration was the factor creating lower delinquency rates, rather than having sex?

Reverse it in the above case - social alienation predicts crime. It is correlated with both ethnic status and low IQ, but if you find people who are of an ethnic status that are socially integrated, or people of low IQ that are socially integrated, do you really think they'd be at any increased likelihood of committing a crime?

That correlation, causation, and covariation thing sure can be misleading. Good thing we're so careful about attributing causality, isn't it?

By the way, there's a minister in the (vastly majority Caucasian) city where I live who is black, and drives an seventies-era Ford Galaxy. He was pulled over eight times one month for the crime of being black.

What impact do you suppose that exerts on perception of social integration? On his feelings of community belonging? The idea that he has a shared stake in law and order?

Think about it, fsilber.

MorganLee:

Youve just shown your own ingnorance I'm afraid. Cultural bias in a test doesn't necc mean that questions are restricted to subjects that one group might be more familiar with.

Don't you feel somewhat embarrased by injecting the word "ignorance," but not knowing how to spell it?

Don't you feel somewhat embarrassed by injecting the word "embarrassed," but not knowing how to spell it?

I have nothing substantive to add to the discussion at this time, but poor spelling in the same sentence in which one is criticizing another's poor spelling seems a bit much.

Don't you feel somewhat embarrassed by injecting the word "embarrassed," but not knowing how to spell it?

Yes.

I'll be honest, MorganLee, I don't know much about IQ tests, but my gut tells me that they are biased. I know that is very Bush-esque, but could you please explain how they are not culturally biased? I know it doesn't seem fair to put the burden of proof on the negative, but I don't see how it could not be biased.

GeneralDisarray:

I liked your "social integration" answer a lot better. Remember that one? Where you posited that social integration was the factor creating lower delinquency rates, rather than having sex?

Reverse it in the above case - social alienation predicts crime. It is correlated with both ethnic status and low IQ, but if you find people who are of an ethnic status that are socially integrated, or people of low IQ that are socially integrated, do you really think they'd be at any increased likelihood of committing a crime?

That correlation, causation, and covariation thing sure can be misleading. Good thing we're so careful about attributing causality, isn't it?

By the way, there's a minister in the (vastly majority Caucasian) city where I live who is black, and drives an seventies-era Ford Galaxy. He was pulled over eight times one month for the crime of being black.

What impact do you suppose that exerts on perception of social integration? On his feelings of community belonging? The idea that he has a shared stake in law and order?

I acknowledge your point; it is indeed a vicious cycle. Blacks commit lots of crimes -> cops look harder at black people -> blacks feel increasingly alienated -> blacks become more crime-prone.

That's one of the reasons I support more options for individual armed self-defense rather than relying so much on police to intercept thieves and robbers before they strike. While a confrontational crime is going down, the victim knows which person is the perpetrator -- and when no crime is going down while I'm out carrying my gun, my attitude is to mind my own (f-word) business.

Test bias is examined by determining the rank order difficulty for test items for two groups. The only group that claims bias is US blacks. So you compare the rank order difficulty for each test item for blacks and whites. If you find a question that is much more difficult for one group than the other, then that question may be biased, or it may tap an ability difference between the groups. After a lot of such studies, the IQ tests in common use have not been found to be biased. The rank order difficulty is the same for any group taking the test.

Otherwise it is quite obvious that the between group tests are not biased with respect to their determination of mean IQs. The reason is that when such variables as measures of mental speed, brain volume, and brain wave analysis all show the same relationships between groups as are shown by IQ tests. If the tests were biased against one group, that would not happen.

Also keep in mind that explanations for group differences should make sense in explaining all group differences and they should match actual cohort data, not guesses.

fsilber:

[That's one of the reasons I support more options for individual armed self-defense rather than relying so much on police to intercept thieves and robbers before they strike. While a confrontational crime is going down, the victim knows which person is the perpetrator -- and when no crime is going down while I'm out carrying my gun, my attitude is to mind my own (f-word) business.

I own several firearms and fully support the right to bear arms. But I also think that private firearms as a significant deterrent to violent crime would require a significant percentage of people to have conceal carry permits.

I doubt that the average potential mugger gives much thought to the possibility that his next victim might well be packing and would be able and willing to use his/her weapon.