Just WTF is "racism" these days, anyways?

[∞∞∞]

I think we're about to get back into the mandatory dorm curriculum again: whites are racist by definition.

You're gawdamn right, and we need to be punished!

Agreed. We need to be punished as much as possible!

[JohnStOnge]

Who is the scientist and where can we find what he or she had to say?

I know Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray certainly made the news when they published "The Bell Curve" during the 1990s.

I'll go ahead and throw gas on the fire and say that it's quite possible that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups and I agree with the idea that assuming there are not is based more on egalitarian philosophy than science.

We, society, do proceed on the assumption that if only everything were completely fair we would get essentially equivalent performances among different ethnic groups. The assumption is entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, there are indications that it is false.

[Chizzang]

Who is the scientist and where can we find what he or she had to say?

I know Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray certainly made the news when they published "The Bell Curve" during the 1990s.

I'll go ahead and throw gas on the fire and say that it's quite possible that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups and I agree with the idea that assuming there are not is based more on egalitarian philosophy than science.

We, society, do proceed on the assumption that if only everything were completely fair we would get essentially equivalent performances among different ethnic groups. The assumption is entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, there are indications that it is false.

I always thought that the basis of the argument wasn't that "measurable intelligence" among racial groups were indeed different (because they are) but - that the value of the person was equal no matter how different we all were or what race we might be...

or something like that... the whole content of our character thing

It's pretty old news (I'm talking 1970's) that it became apparent - black kids don't generally test well and that asian Asian kids test higher than everybody... all this only matters if tests are the measure of intelligence that matters

[93henfan]

Who is the scientist and where can we find what he or she had to say?

I know Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray certainly made the news when they published "The Bell Curve" during the 1990s.

I'll go ahead and throw gas on the fire and say that it's quite possible that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups and I agree with the idea that assuming there are not is based more on egalitarian philosophy than science.

We, society, do proceed on the assumption that if only everything were completely fair we would get essentially equivalent performances among different ethnic groups. The assumption is entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, there are indications that it is false.

I always thought that the basis of the argument wasn't that "measurable intelligence" among racial groups were indeed different (because they are) but - that the value of the person was equal no matter how different we all were or what race we might be...

or something like that... the whole content of our character thing

It's pretty old news (I'm talking 1970's) that it became apparent - black kids don't generally test well and that asian Asian kids test higher than everybody... all this only matters if tests are the measure of intelligence that matters

Let me go ahead and give the Cliffs Notes:

JSO: Asians>White>Blacks
Chizzang: TampaJag might not be able to read, but he gets more white pussy than anyone here, so who's the dumb ass now?

[Pwns]

Who is the scientist and where can we find what he or she had to say?

I know Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray certainly made the news when they published "The Bell Curve" during the 1990s.

I'll go ahead and throw gas on the fire and say that it's quite possible that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups and I agree with the idea that assuming there are not is based more on egalitarian philosophy than science.

We, society, do proceed on the assumption that if only everything were completely fair we would get essentially equivalent performances among different ethnic groups. The assumption is entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, there are indications that it is false.

It was James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule.

[JohnStOnge]

all this only matters if tests are the measure of intelligence that matters.

We obviously think certain tests matter. Even though a lot of academics decry standardized testing just about all colleges and universities (and absolutely all, for all I know) require standardized testing results for admission (SAT or ACT). If you want to go on to post secondary education you have to take something like a GRE, LSAT, MCAT. There obviously is a widespread belief that the results tell us something.

Those are not intelligence tests per se, but I would be shocked if the results of all those tests are not highly correlated with results of IQ tests. I know SAT results are because I've looked at that.

Regardless, there is no basis for believing that there are NOT differnences in distributions of innate aptitudes. And that's important because we proceed in many respects on that basis of assuming "no differences." For example: A lot of time and effort is devoted to narrowing the gaps between different ethic group performances on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests. As long as there are gaps, it's assumed more needs to be done to narrow them.

That, to me, could result in different approaches than the approaches that might be taken if the sole objective was to make ALL students to better.

[Willie]

Nice avatar bar. You must have really shelled out the dough for that.

Nope. Only criticized Jim Tressel and Ohio State.

You obviously haven't heard about the new donation system. Someone donated to have you don that masterpiece. And as much as I know you'd like for it to be me that donated to make it happen, it wasn't I assure you that. You have a few individuals who wanted to see you in those colors.

[Grizalltheway]

Who is the scientist and where can we find what he or she had to say?

I know Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray certainly made the news when they published "The Bell Curve" during the 1990s.

I'll go ahead and throw gas on the fire and say that it's quite possible that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups and I agree with the idea that assuming there are not is based more on egalitarian philosophy than science.

We, society, do proceed on the assumption that if only everything were completely fair we would get essentially equivalent performances among different ethnic groups. The assumption is entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, there are indications that it is false.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel, then get back to us.

[CID1990]

Who is the scientist and where can we find what he or she had to say?

I know Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray certainly made the news when they published "The Bell Curve" during the 1990s.

I'll go ahead and throw gas on the fire and say that it's quite possible that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups and I agree with the idea that assuming there are not is based more on egalitarian philosophy than science.

We, society, do proceed on the assumption that if only everything were completely fair we would get essentially equivalent performances among different ethnic groups. The assumption is entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, there are indications that it is false.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel, then get back to us.

I well written piece, and certainly food for thought.

However at the end of the day it is one theory among many, and not the most widely accepted one.

[kalm]

I always thought that the basis of the argument wasn't that "measurable intelligence" among racial groups were indeed different (because they are) but - that the value of the person was equal no matter how different we all were or what race we might be...

or something like that... the whole content of our character thing

It's pretty old news (I'm talking 1970's) that it became apparent - black kids don't generally test well and that asian Asian kids test higher than everybody... all this only matters if tests are the measure of intelligence that matters

Let me go ahead and give the Cliffs Notes:

JSO: Asians>White>Blacks
Chizzang: TampaJag might not be able to read, but he gets more white pussy than anyone here, so who's the dumb ass now?

[JohnStOnge]

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel, then get back to us

I read a few summaries of it after seeing your post. I think it makes sense to say that happening to be in an area that contains plants and animals more suitable for domestication is a factor in the likelihood of developing a more advanced civilization. However it doesn't explain stuff like what happens with today's National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests.

Some of this I've written before. One great thing about the NAEP data is that they are based on "scientific" samples of students. The results can be legitimately used to make estimates about the larger population (and subpopulations). You can go to the web site and break things down by parental education level (highest level achieved by at least one parent), whether students are eligible for the school lunch program or not (i.e., poor vs. not poor with eligible = poor and not eligible = not poor). From here on I'll use a convention where "other children of college graduate(s)" refers to the most advantaged group while "poor children of no high school parents" refers to the least advantaged group.

The overall public school average score on the 2009 12th grade math test among "other children of college graduate(s)" is 168 while that of "poor children of no high school parents" is 135. Huge difference.

Now we introduce race. Here are some selected average scores:

Poor Asian children of no high school parents - 162 (among least advantaged group)
Other Black children of college graduate(s) - 143 (among most advantaged group)
Poor White children of no high school parents - 138
Poor White children of high school graduate(s) - 143
Other Asian children of college graduate(s) - 187
Other White children of college graduate(s) - 170
Poor Black children of no high school parents - 124

In my opinion there is no way one can look at that set of results and not remain open to the possibility that there are innate differences in distributions of mathematics aptitudes between racial groups. The least advantaged Asian group scored substantially higher than the most advantaged Black group. Whites in a group that would be 2nd or 3rd from the bottom among 8 defined socioeconomic/parental education level groups scored about the same on average as Blacks in the most advantaged group.

Do the scores "prove" there are innate differences in ptitude distributions? No. It's observational data. But the point is that the culture at this time is biased towards wanting to believe there are no such innate differences. We don't want to even entertain the possibility in spite of the fact that, to me, we would immediately suspect it's the case when looking at results like those above if we did not have an emotional/philosophical aversion to doing so.

And I don't see how one group's ancestors having access to better plants and animals for domestication can impact something like those test scores in 2009.

[JohnStOnge]

I noted that the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel won a Pulitzer prize and was widely praised. That's a stark contrast with respect to what happened to Hernstein and Murray with The Bell Curve or what happened to Hernstein when he wrote IQ and the Meritocracy back in the 1970s (I think). My opinion is that is a manifestation of something else in play: The playing field in science is not level. There are popular and unpopular views. Guns, Germs, and Steel proferred the idea that certain groups achieved more than others due to the luck of geography. That is what egalitarians want to hear. That fits the desired assumption.

The Bell Curve and IQ and the Meritocracy proferred the idea that innate differences in intelligence are a factor. That is NOT what egalitarians want to hear. It does not fit the desired assumption. As soon as something like that comes out there is a massive effort to find any possible flaws or technicalities that can be used to refute it. Plus you get ad hominem attack. I can remember one particular headline during The Bell Curve days reading "Professors of Hate." In reality there was not an ounce of hate in the book.

Richard Hernstein once had to hide under a desk in fear for his personal safety after writing IQ and the Meritocracy. I'm confident that didn't happen to Jared Diamond after he wrote a book that flattered what the academic elite and all of their sycophants in the media penned something consistent with the view they want to be true.

[Skjellyfetti]

Do the scores "prove" there are innate differences in ptitude distributions? No. It's observational data. But the point is that the culture at this time is biased towards wanting to believe there are no such innate differences. We don't want to even entertain the possibility in spite of the fact that, to me, we would immediately suspect it's the case when looking at results like those above if we did not have an emotional/philosophical aversion to doing so.

You're right that it doesn't prove innate differences.

There are a whole host of reasons that lead to skewed results for 12th graders in math. I bet blacks are more likely to come from worse school districts. There could be cultural reasons... more single parent families in black households, less emphasis on education, etc. etc. Test scores don't prove anything about innate intelligence.

I mean... you could look at the NEAP data and come to the conclusion that kids that grow up in the South are stupider than kids that grow up in the Northeast... right?

If you believe blacks are inherently less intelligent than white people... I think you'd have to look at neurological data or something that measures human intelligence without the influence of outside social or cultural factors.

[YoUDeeMan]

Recently, a white guy became the first white person to run a sub 10-second 100 yard dash. But don't worry, there are no differences between people...everyone is equal. No physical differences, no mental differences. Any perceived differences can be explained.

For instance, white people don't get to practice running from the law or bullets coming from the local crack dealers.

Sure, it all makes sense now.

[Chizzang]

Do the scores "prove" there are innate differences in ptitude distributions? No. It's observational data. But the point is that the culture at this time is biased towards wanting to believe there are no such innate differences. We don't want to even entertain the possibility in spite of the fact that, to me, we would immediately suspect it's the case when looking at results like those above if we did not have an emotional/philosophical aversion to doing so.

You're right that it doesn't prove innate differences.

There are a whole host of reasons that lead to skewed results for 12th graders in math. I bet blacks are more likely to come from worse school districts. There could be cultural reasons... more single parent families in black households, less emphasis on education, etc. etc. Test scores don't prove anything about innate intelligence.

I mean... you could look at the NEAP data and come to the conclusion that kids that grow up in the South are stupider than kids that grow up in the Northeast... right?

If you believe blacks are inherently less intelligent than white people... I think you'd have to look at neurological data or something that measures human intelligence without the influence of outside social or cultural factors.

True Dat,
Just because there's a bunch of data on how kids test in general intelligence quotient situations I don't think very many sociologists or those with a well studied sociological perspective hold that to be particularly valuable...

The only people obsessed with IQ studies tend to be people looking to confirm an idea they already have - kind of the old "See I told you Asians were smart" or "See I told you blacks were stupid"

Really the only kind of social study or Sociological theory I'm interested in is how do we "value" people of other cultures, colors and races... I think that is the truest measurement of human development

[SeattleGriz]

Who is the scientist and where can we find what he or she had to say?

I know Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray certainly made the news when they published "The Bell Curve" during the 1990s.

I'll go ahead and throw gas on the fire and say that it's quite possible that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between what we call racial groups and I agree with the idea that assuming there are not is based more on egalitarian philosophy than science.

We, society, do proceed on the assumption that if only everything were completely fair we would get essentially equivalent performances among different ethnic groups. The assumption is entirely unsubstantiated and, in fact, there are indications that it is false.

It was James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule.

He stole that shit from Rosalind Franklin. A woman! If it wasn't for her work in crystallography (X ray diffraction), Watson and Crick would still be scratching their asses.

[CID1990]

You're right that it doesn't prove innate differences.

There are a whole host of reasons that lead to skewed results for 12th graders in math. I bet blacks are more likely to come from worse school districts. There could be cultural reasons... more single parent families in black households, less emphasis on education, etc. etc. Test scores don't prove anything about innate intelligence.

I mean... you could look at the NEAP data and come to the conclusion that kids that grow up in the South are stupider than kids that grow up in the Northeast... right?

If you believe blacks are inherently less intelligent than white people... I think you'd have to look at neurological data or something that measures human intelligence without the influence of outside social or cultural factors.

True Dat,
Just because there's a bunch of data on how kids test in general intelligence quotient situations I don't think very many sociologists or those with a well studied sociological perspective hold that to be particularly valuable...

The only people obsessed with IQ studies tend to be people looking to confirm an idea they already have - kind of the old "See I told you Asians were smart" or "See I told you blacks were stupid" Really the only kind of social study or Sociological theory I'm interested in is how do we "value" people of other cultures, colors and races... I think that is the truest measurement of human development

I don't know. COnsidering some of the esoteric things you see scientists studying these days, I find it credible that there would be some folks out there who would love to research something like this out of pure scientific curiosity.

However, it won't happen, because

1. There will never be grant money for it, ever.
2. The Jesse Jacksons of the world would raise holy hell. (Maybe the Chinese would lend a few bucks to it though)

Have you seen those studies on homosexuality where they point out that gays have a different neuron map than non-gays? Then you see the cross section photos that bear this out. These studies were actually popular because they actually tended to debunk the 'nurture before nature' argument of the anti-gay crowd.

If differences in neural mapping can determine things like sexual orientation, AND if we can accept that there ARE in fact genetic differences between racial groups (eye color, skin color, bone structure), then I find it credible that genetics also determine brain function, just as genetics determine everything else.

[JohnStOnge]

I mean... you could look at the NEAP data and come to the conclusion that kids that grow up in the South are stupider than kids that grow up in the Northeast... right?

Perhaps. But an interesting thing about comparing different States and regions is that the differences are greatly reduced or disappear entirely when demographics are taken into account. For instance: I've posted before that when you adjust for socioeconomic status (school lunch program), parental education level, and race Louisiana's average scores on NAEP tests are about average as compared the nation and Texas's scores are way up there...about like those of Massachusetts. And it should be noted that it's not possible for me to adjust completely.

Take comparing White students who are not on the school lunch program and who have "parental education level" of "college graduate" to students in that group in Massachusetts. That does not mean I'm necessarily comparing "equally advantaged" groups. All "parental education level" refers to is the highest level obtained by at least one parent. So you can have situations ranging from things like one parent having a Bachelors degree in human performance to two parents with Ph.Ds in physics. Also, in the socioeconomic status thing it's quite possible that those in the "non eligible for the school lunch program" group in Louisiana are still not as economically advantaged as those in the same group in Massachusetts.

The point is that a student's demographic information is a lot more predictive with repsect to what their score on a NAEP test will be than information on where they live in terms of State or region is. In general, States that do well are States with small minority populations and smaller proportions of people who qualify for the school lunch programs.

Just to illustrate, let's compare Massachussetts and Texas. Unfortunately I can't do that with the 12th grade math test because the sample did not include all states. I have to use the 2009 8th grade math test.

Overall, Massachussetts students averaged 299 while Texas students averaged 287. A substantial, "statistically significant" difference.

But what happens when we adjust for some demographics. Here are the scores for the two states when there are enough students who took the test in each group in both states to report averages:

Hispanic, poor, parents did not finish high school: Texas 272, Massachusetts 261
White, not poor, parental education level high school graduate: Texas 295, Massachusetts 292
Black, poor, parental education level high school graduate: Texas 263, Massachusetts 260
Hispanic, poor, parental education level high school graduate: Texas 274, Massachusetts 270
White, not poor, parental education some education after high school: Texas 300, Massachusetts 295
Black, poor, parental education some education after high school: Texas 275, Massachusetts 272
Hispanic, poor, parental education some education after high school: Texas 284, Massachusetts 269
White, poor, parental education college graduate: Texas 293, Massachusetts 297
White, not poor, parental education college graduate: Texas 311, Massachusetts 315
Black, poor, parental education college graduate: Texas 271, Massachusetts 280
Hispanic, poor, parental education college graduate: Texas 279, Massachusetts 267
Asian, not poor, college graduate: Texas 325, Massachusetts 334

[JohnStOnge]

Just because there's a bunch of data on how kids test in general intelligence quotient situations I don't think very many sociologists or those with a well studied sociological perspective hold that to be particularly valuable...

And do you not see that there is a philosophical pressure against a particular category of views? Say we have two sociologists. One says that there are differences in general intellligence distributions between races and that the differences are at least in part innate. Another says the opposite.

Which do you think is going to get the more favorable treatment? More importantly, which do you think is going to get unfavorable treatment?

[JohnStOnge]

You're right that it doesn't prove innate differences.

There are a whole host of reasons that lead to skewed results for 12th graders in math. I bet blacks are more likely to come from worse school districts. There could be cultural reasons... more single parent families in black households, less emphasis on education, etc. etc. Test scores don't prove anything about innate intelligence.

I mean... you could look at the NEAP data and come to the conclusion that kids that grow up in the South are stupider than kids that grow up in the Northeast... right?

If you believe blacks are inherently less intelligent than white people... I think you'd have to look at neurological data or something that measures human intelligence without the influence of outside social or cultural factors.

Ok. Let's compare Asians who are eligible for the school lunch program in situations where neither parent graduated from high school and Blacks who are not eligible for the school lunch program in situations in which at least one parent has a college degree. Poor children of relatively uneducated parents vs. children who are not poor with at least one relatively educated parent. Are you confident that, overall, the Blacks are more likely to have come from "worse" school districts?

I don't know about that one. I would think that most highly educated middle to upper class Blacks are able to move to areas where there children do not have to attend the worst schools.

But the main point is this: Our culture is not even willing to consider the idea of innate differences as a factor. To do something like look at poor Asian students of parents who didn't finish high school scoring substantially higher on a math test designed to measure math competence than Black students who are not poor and who have at least one parent who finished college and immediately assume that it can't be because of innate differences in the distributions of math aptitudes is ridiculous. It really is.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, notice that I favor using the term "aptitude" and not the term "intelligence." We test for certain things. Asians appear to do better in math. But other groups do better in other areas. For example, here is a comparison of Whites and Asians in the most recent NAEP 8th grade science test (12th grade test didn't get enough Asians to provide estimates):

Poor, parents didn't finish high school: White 140, Asian 136
Not poor, parents didn't finish high school" White 147, Asian 145
Poor, at least one parent graduated high school: White 145, Asian 141
Not poor, at least one parent graduated high school: White 154, Asian 147
Poor, at least one parent some education after high school: White 155, Asian 153
Not poor, at least one parent some education after high school: White 163, Asian 157
Poor, at least one parent graduated college: White 154, Asian 152
Not poor, at least one parent graduated college: White 171, Asian 173

Now, if the math advantage of Asians is because of culture or something like that, why is it that Whites and Asians in similar situations score about the same in science? Is there something about the culture of Asians that tends to make Asians better in math but for some reason does not make them better in science?

[BigSkyBears]

Consider this:

A nobel-prize winning scientist says American policy towards sub-Saharan Africa is flawed because it falsely assumes that ethnic Africans have evolved the same level of intelligence as ethnic Europeans. Barely anyone in the media mentions it and there is hardly anything to be found on the 'net about it.

On the other hand, a young woman makes a youtube video complaining about what she perceives as rudeness by one ethnic group. She does nothing to suggest that the rudeness is somehow biologically innate within that group. All hell breaks loose. The girl gets death threats and has to drop out of school. Practically everyone who gets news from the net knows about it. It's even seen on TV news as well.

Now which one of these comes closer to the actual definition of racism and is really more dangerous rhetoric? And why is the reaction so completely different? It's getting really hard to take anything that diversity-mongers say about race seriously with this kind of cognitive dissonance going on.

That's a good point. I remember reading something about Nobel winner. Not sure how to answer the over all question though.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if you're interested you can get to the NAEP data queries by going to http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Click on "Main NDE." You'll get a box where you have to agree to terms. Once you agree you'll be directed to the query area.

[Chizzang]

Just because there's a bunch of data on how kids test in general intelligence quotient situations I don't think very many sociologists or those with a well studied sociological perspective hold that to be particularly valuable...

And do you not see that there is a philosophical pressure against a particular category of views? Say we have two sociologists. One says that there are differences in general intellligence distributions between races and that the differences are at least in part innate. Another says the opposite.

Which do you think is going to get the more favorable treatment? More importantly, which do you think is going to get unfavorable treatment?

John I get it - and this is also your environmental Global Climate Change Argument (as well)

Secondly: out of complete context my quote that you use doesn't make much sense

[JohnStOnge]

John I get it - and this is also your environmental Global Climate Change Argument (as well)

It is part of the climate change argument, but not all of it. A perhaps more important part is that it is not possible to infer cause and effect with stastical data without controlled experimentation along with the fact that, if you look carefully, you can see that the IPCC concedes that point in its latest Physical Science Basis report. And there are many other parts.