Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.
Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com)
Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:58:43 GMT
In article <mbanetD3wouv.1L2@netcom.com>,
David Waters <mbanet@netcom.com> wrote:
>Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: Mendel didn't know about specific genetic squences in his experiments,
>: but he proved that the genes existed. And it would seem that you are
>: making the assumption that IQ is determined by one gene, and that is not
>: likely to be true. What they did is a statistical study to show the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: relation between race and IQ score, while other studies showed that there
>: is a relation between IQ and genetics.
>
>The whole concept of a "standard intelligence" is highly suspect.
The test is useful because it serves as a statistical predictor.
> Isn't
>it a little suspicious that the IQ test that we seem to be speaking of
>was devised/designed by "whites"? Now, is it just coincidence that
>"whites" fit the normal distribution better than other races? Thou shall
>not audit thyself!!! Get the picture?
Asians score higher than whites. It is absurd to propose that there is a
white conspiracy against some minorities and that whites are trying to
advance Asians.
As for whites fitting the normal distribution better, that is because
whites (use) to make up a majority when then test was created, so they
better "fit" the norm.
>
>Does the standard IQ test fairly account for all of the "traits"
>demonstrated by ALL of the "races"? For example, aren't there
>differences between the IQ scores by Asain Americans and Asians (in Asian
>countries)?
I don't recall. Perhaps you would be so kind to tell us since you asked
the question.
I do recall that blacks in Africa scored lower than blacks in the U.S..
> Also, I recall a measurement for manual dexterity on the IQ
>test; however, greater hand-eye coordination and physical agility are not
>measured? Why not? Doesn't physical agility and greater hand-eye
>coordination require some form of intelligence? What about the wisdom of
>so-called primitive tribesmen in Africa, Central and South America, Asia,
>and the Pacific Islands? Can most Westerners survive in *their* cultures
>using a so-called superior intelligence?
I don't see that it matters much. If the test can be used to predict the
success rate of a group in areas requiring intelligence, then the exact
nature of the test is unimportant. It predicts.
>So, how are these STATISTICAL STUDIES to be used? So far, we've seen a
>lot of people, most of whom probably have no worthwhile understanding of
>genetics or IQ measurements, make statements and assumptions about the
>intelligence of AfAms as a whole. Eventually, the momentum of these
>assumptions impacts individuals and may even lead to more discriminatory
>policies or (more likely) influences the decisions of employers, etc.
The only rational conclusion is that current affirmative action policies
discriminate against whites and asians in certain high tech fields. Also,
the minority owned business program may be in need of adjustment.
>When Dan Quayle says that [paraphrasing] "We need to get rid of
>Affirmative Action because it discriminates..."
It is a true statement.
>and when the Rutgers administrator makes such a lame comment(s)
Actually, it was the Universitiy president, and he wanted to get rid of
SAT test because he felt that they discriminated against blacks. He
retracted everything he said, said it was a slip of the tongue, put the
PC police have decided to seek his dismissal anyway.
Proof positive that there is no freedom of speech in this subject.
Actually, there is nothing controversial here; the results have been
known for some time. It's just next to illegal to SAY it, is all.
>the net effect is to give unwarranted support for these STATISTICAL STUDIES!!!
?
I don't understand. Is it that the support is coming from a strange
place, or that entire subject of statistics that is in question?
>Statistical
>studies are not factual (direct) evidence of anything (to be applied
>to individuals) but merely circumstantial evidence, at best, in the
>event of a "flawless" analysis.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that anything be done to apply to
individuals. It is the "group" policies of EOP and Affirmative Action
that seem to be founded on unsound statistics. What is being said is that
people should be selected by merit, and not by minority set asides.
>: Previously, David Waters <mbanet@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >Besides, if there *was* such a (reliable) test, then the intelligence of
>: >*ANY* two children (not just AfAm) could be predicted by examining DNA
>: >alone. Do you want your children to be placed in predetermined
>: >education/training programs based on what their DNA (alone) says??? I
>: >don't think you do! Now can you carry that thought a little further to
>: >comprehend the problems caused when (certain) people ASSUME that there
>: >is a genetic reason to discriminate?
>
>Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: Well, first you are inventing a straw man, then attacking it. Even _The
>: Bell Curve_ states that genetics contributes only 60% of intelligence.
>: No one has suggested we do genetic test. The test do not exist, and
>: genetics are not 100% what causes intelligence.
>
>Essentially, it's all guesswork...without fully (or significantly)
>understanding genetics, you assume that it composes 60% of intelligence
>(which is a questionable term in itself) and the other 40%
>(environmental) is also vaguely understood and certainly can't be
>quantified.
No, I don't assume. It is what the data indicates. There are various test
that can be done to determine how much of intelligence is genetic and
how much environmental, but since you don't believe in statistics, there
is little point in going into it.
>Yet, people are ready and willing to implement policy and make decisions
>under the influence of these "findings"!!!
Why not? The assumptions made when AA and EOP were implemented were that
all races are exactly equal in all areas of ability. There was not a
shred of data to support this or to indicate this assumption. It was
pure wishful thinking and idealism. Unfortunately, nature isn't so fair as
we would have it.
> For 15 years, I worked on the
>Space Shuttle Software Verification Team (Integrated Guidance, Navigation,
>and Control)...how about if I based reports and findings on data that's
>only half or one-quarter as vague and questionable? Would it still be
>safe to fly???
I doubt that the FAA would say that the space shuttle was anywhere NEAR
flight worthy anyway.
>
>Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com) wrote:
>[car analogy snipped]
>: IF the problems with black poverty, black
>: crime rates and under representation in some fields is due to some racial
>: differences, wouldn't you want to know that so that you could deal with
>: it?
>
>What??? Poverty, crime rates, and representation in certain fields of
>study are caused by RACIAL differences??? Unfortunately, I do believe
>that you are quite serious...too bad!!! :-(
Forty years of social programs have not fixed the problem for blacks.
Yet, in one generation, South East Asians have gone from non-English
speaking with a quite alien culture to filling U.C. Berkeley. Given the
findings of _The Bell Curve_, we would expect these SE Asians to fill our
universities.
And since IQ is a predictor of success, we would expect that those with
lower scores to fill the lower economic brackets (statistically).
>Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: The standard answer has been for the last 50 years is that White
>: people are the problem. Well, we fixed that. They WERE the problem. But
>: to be honest, most white people just don't give a damn what race a person
>: is anymore, no matter how loud black people scream racist.
>
>This is exactly like saying that the Israelis and Arabs have been friends
>for...what?...has it been more than two years now?
>
>Besides, I'm 34 years young, however, during *my* lifetime it would have
>been illegal for *me* to drink from the same water fountains as "whites"
>in certain areas of this country. And guess what??? Some of the people
>who supported the menatlity that made THAT a crime are still alive and
>have had children to whom those values were passed down to...not to
>mention the "born again" racists ala Neo-Nazis, Christian Identity, etc.
>
>Are you of the silly idea that racism has ended in this country?
Are there bigots? Sadly, yes. There are bigots of all races,
nationalities and religions.
>Do you
>believe that African Americans were all given equal footing in this
>country at some point in time?
According to the data, African Americans have enjoyed discrimination in
their favor for quite some time now.
> Do you think that CENTURIES of oppression
>via slavery, discriminatory laws and policies, and directed violence
>(lynchings, beatings, etc.) could be corrected even in the 50 year period
>that *you* claim???
I thought that you said that you were 34? How could you have suffered
centuries of oppression? :-)
Look, my people were exterminated to give your people the 40 acres in the
old "40 acres and a mule" when they freed the slaves. No one practiced
genocide against blacks like they did against native Americans. My father
was born on the reservation.
I'm doing okay. I don't even USE the affirmative action that I am
entitled to. What was done to my ancestors doesn't rate unfair treatment
for me.
Besides, how does past discrimination change the data being true?
--
--
Steve La Joie
lajoie@eskimo.com
|