White men still dominating science posts

[Moonbear]

Adrenaline, I think southern universities also have to deal with the unwillingness of minorities to move to those areas of the country for college. I grew up in the northeast, and besides having plenty of good "local" schools to choose from, I've known a number of people who were very hesitant to attend universities in the south, not because of racism at the university itself, but because of the racism in the community they would have to live in around the school.

There's another way of looking at affirmative action, and it all depends on the sort of program one is considering. We just recently had our recruitment weekend for candidates to our graduate program here, and among the applicants are a few minority applicants. As I went through a long day of interviewing applicants, the minority applicants certainly ranked among the top. With or without affirmative action, they'd be getting offers into our program. However, we have limited funding, so can't take everyone who applies, though we had a wonderful group come through this year and it will be tough to choose the few who we can't accept simply because we can't fund them (graduate students all come in with full tuition, stipends and benefits paid by our program). So, we've submitted applications for fellowships to fund some of our minority applicants. Those fellowships are specifically for minorities, meant as an affirmative action type thing. So, if those applicants get those awards, what it means is not just that we can bring in those minority applicants who would have been accepted either way, but it would also open up some slots to bring in a few more of the non-minority candidates who we'd have had to turn away otherwise. So, in our case, affirmative action is actually helping everyone.

 

[hitssquad]

Credentialisms gone wild

Originally posted by Moonbear
As I went through a long day of interviewing applicants, the minority applicants certainly ranked among the top.

How did you know they were "minorities"?

we've submitted applications for fellowships to fund some of our minority applicants. Those fellowships are specifically for minorities, meant as an affirmative action type thing. So, if those applicants get those awards, what it means is not just that we can bring in those minority applicants who would have been accepted either way, but it would also open up some slots to bring in a few more of the non-minority candidates

Theoretically, you could also fund the "non-minorities" with fellowships, and the result wouldn't be any different.

 

[Njection]

Opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that "equality of opportunity" is not nearly as simple as it sounds.

Proponents of affirmative action need to recognize that it is not incumbent upon anyone to support affirmative action in the first place.

But supporters of "affirmative action" have to understand its limits.

Who is going to force the supporters of affirmative action to recognize its limits? No one.

This limit has to be clearly limited, otherwise, it too can easily end up as precisely the kind of routine labeling and treatment according to race, ethnicity etc. that it was meant to expunge.

What makes you believe that affirmative action was set up to expunge "routine labeling and treatment according to race, ethnicity"?

The question is where the limits ought to be.

That is not the question at all. The question is why it is incumbent upon anyone to support AA in the first place.

Of course, you may ask, why limit, why not eliminate?

What should be eliminated.

Affirmative action has always been understood to be an temporary practice.

This is false. There are no sunset provisions that will eliminate AA at any point in the future.

Considering equality of racial rights has only been legally gauranteed for about 30+ years out

Since when has our legal system guaranteed the equality of the rights of its citizens, racially speaking, for about 30+ years?

. . .of the 208 years of constitutionally ratified legal slavery, it may be too soon according to some.

Explain to me what slavery has to do with the civil rights of Americans living in the 21st century.

Thus, affirmative action has been tested in less than a full generation.

I will return to my original point. It is not incumbent upon anyone to support AA.

It hastened desegregation and its purpose was to erase the lingering effects of past discrimination

Prove to me that the purpose of AA was to "erase the lingering effects of past discrimination."

. . .but not to reserve jobs, spots in schools, etc. for one group or another permanently!

Is that not precisely what happens when we racially gerrymander congressional districts in order to elect black representatives to Congress?

It is good to see that the Supreme Court, although, not completely eliminating affirmative action, has begun to stress these limits on its use.

There is nothing inherently "good" about the decision of the Supreme Court about AA at all. That is merely your interpretation of the decision.

Who doesn't want to live in a color blind society or sex blind society and to base everything on merit?

I am not interested in sex-blindness, colour-blindness, or meritocracies. Why should I want to handicap myself in making decisions?

But we don't. Prestigious school admissions still look at alumni standing

Alumnis can be of any race. It is not a civil rights issue.

and donations of the parents, so unless this is eliminated, a more inferior caucasion will be equally admitted under the umbrella of their parents donations and alumni status. etc etc.

See above.

as the minority admitted under the umbrella of affirmative action. Fortunately for the former, society does not hold it against him or her.

Collectives do not value anything. Collectives are simply aggregates of individuals.

I realize this is a small example and using academia once again, but you get the gist. Affirmative action is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

This presupposes there is a problem in the first place, one requiring a solution that is AA. Who decides what is and what is not to be a problem? I don't see a problem requiring AA personally.

Personally, I think that it is not necessary in the Northeast, Midwest,or west coast.

Why is this?

owever, as one who lives in the South, I still see blatant racism!

You obviously seem to be quite ignorant of the South and its people. The most segregated areas of America in the Midwest and Northeast, not the South, places like Livonia, Michigan. Racism occurs throughout the United States as well. It is not a Southern phenomena.

I have been on admission committees for our medical school and seen a Black Westing House Science Award winner, varsity swimmer and state champion with A averages as a physics major from Cornell university passed over for a white football player from University of Georgia with B+ average as a economics major!

So what?

In this case, something must be in place that will allow an equally or superiorly qualified black applicant the opportunity to reach his or her goal!

Actually, this is simply your own personal opinion. It is not incumbunt upon me to treat anyone "equally."

 

[Nereid]

Welcome to Physics Forums Njection!

Njection wrote: Is that not precisely what happens when we racially gerrymander congressional districts in order to elect black representatives to Congress?

Why should gerrymandering on the basis of self-(category)selections in the 2000 Census be worse than gerrymandering on any other basis? Since gerrymandering is a well established political sport in the US (and some other countries), why not make use of it?

 

[Njection]

Why should gerrymandering on the basis of self-(category)selections in the 2000 Census be worse than gerrymandering on any other basis?

If we racially gerrymander congressional districts in order to ensure the elections of Negroes to the U.S. Congress that would increase the political power of Negroes would it not? What if I do not desire to see this happen?

Since gerrymandering is a well established political sport in the US (and some other countries), why not make use of it?

Very simple. I perceive some gerrymandering as being beneficial to my interests and other sorts of gerrymandering as being beneficial to my opponents. I am not out to make the world a better place for blacks. It is not in my interests to give them another pedestal to stand on from which they can attack my culture and slander my people. They have enough of those already.

 

[adrenaline]

You obviously seem to be quite ignorant of the South and its people. The most segregated areas of America in the Midwest and Northeast, not the South, places like Livonia, Michigan. Racism occurs throughout the United States as well. It is not a Southern phenomena.

Living in the south for 11 years and working a rural clinic much of my time does not consitute ignorance of the south. Working in New York City for 2 years gives me a right to speak of New York. What you are right about is my ignorance of the Midwest since I have never lived there. In which case, it only supports the notion that Affirmative action may need to continue to be an imperfect solution for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been on admission committees for our medical school and seen a Black Westing House Science Award winner, varsity swimmer and state champion with A averages as a physics major from Cornell university passed over for a white football player from University of Georgia with B+ average as a economics major!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what?

Why would anyone put their lives in the hands of an "inferior" white doctor who made was put into the system with less brainpower than the black candidate above?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In this case, something must be in place that will allow an equally or superiorly qualified black applicant the opportunity to reach his or her goal!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, this is simply your own personal opinion.

I think people who make this generalization generally are not in the position of power of making key hiring decisions in business or otherwise and still do not personally see that the old boy network, and or racial preferances influencing those in those key positions. I fight this all the time as senior partner in my business and practice and of course at the medical school. So this is not a personal opinion, this is real life experience from the "boardroom", not some opinion formulated from a distance.

 

[Nereid]

Njection wrote: It is not in my interests to give them another pedestal to stand on from which they can attack my culture and slander my people. They have enough of those already.

What is 'my culture'? Who are 'my people'?

 

[Njection]

What is 'my culture'? Who are 'my people'?

Southern culture. White southerners.

Living in the south for 11 years and working a rural clinic much of my time does not consitute ignorance of the south.

Tell me what part of the 'South' you live in. I would love to know. We have had a problem with Yankees colonizing our cities as of late.

Working in New York City for 2 years gives me a right to speak of New York.

New York City is not New York State just as Atlanta is not the State of Georgia.

What you are right about is my ignorance of the Midwest since I have never lived there. In which case, it only supports the notion that Affirmative action may need to continue to be an imperfect solution for now.

This presupposes there is a problem. Who determines whether or not there is a problem?

Why would anyone put their lives in the hands of an "inferior" white doctor who made was put into the system with less brainpower than the black candidate above?

I am not going to sit here and debate with you your own personal experiences which no one can verify.

I think people who make this generalization generally are not in the position of power of making key hiring decisions in business or otherwise and still do not personally see that the old boy network, and or racial preferances influencing those in those key positions.

Once again, even if an "old boy network" did exist it does not necessarily follow that anything should be done about it. Why should I care if blacks are discriminated against? So what? Why should I be anymore concerned with blacks suffering from discrimination than the migration of penguins on Antartica?

I fight this all the time as senior partner in my business and practice and of course at the medical school.

Why should we fight racial discrimination against blacks? Why not celebrate it instead? :p

So this is not a personal opinion, this is real life experience from the "boardroom", not some opinion formulated from a distance.

The notion that we should fight racial discrimination in order to get rid of the "old boy network" is nothing more than a personal prejudice on your part. It is not incumbent upon anyone to fight racial discrimination against blacks or care about its existence.

 

[Nereid]

Njection wrote: Southern culture. White southerners.

I guess you mean in the US, not Chile or Patagonia? Is racial discrimination or racial prejudice an integral part of 'southern culture'? What role do persons with dark skin play in 'southern culture'? How does one become a 'white southerner'?

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Njection
Southern culture. White southerners...

Why should I care if blacks are discriminated against? So what? Why should I be anymore concerned with blacks suffering from discrimination than the migration of penguins on Antartica?...





Tell me what part of the 'South' you live in. I would love to know. We have had a problem with Yankees colonizing our cities as of late.

I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of the South.

I practice in two places. One in Covington, Georgia near Jackson, Georgia. (Covington as in the TV show Heat of the Night with Carol O'Conner when it was filmed here) I believe our only claim to fame. Then there's MCG, Medical College of Georgia...but you know where that is.
http://www.iris.mcg.edu/ifl/Queries/viewfac.asp?faculty=qrqppgtxp
(needs a little updating but I'm lazy)

http://www.ngh.org/PressReleases/Internal Medicine.htm

(Our practice is called Internal Medicine of Newton County.


http://www.thedocsoffice.com/index.asp and just type my name

My husband is a born and raised southerner, so you won't be getting rid of this Yankee (although I have lived in Malaysia for most my life ) anytime soon.

Christy Blanchford MD

I guess you mean in the US, not Chile or Patagonia? Is racial discrimination or racial prejudice an integral part of 'southern culture'? What role do persons with dark skin play in 'southern culture'? How does one become a 'white southerner'

It sure seems like it, doesn't it?

 

[peonyu]

Originally posted by adrenaline
Why would anyone put their lives in the hands of an "inferior" white doctor who made was put into the system with less brainpower than the black candidate above?

Could'nt the same argument be made against AA and its tendency to hire lesser educated Blacks & Latinos over White males in order to meet a set quota ?

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by peonyu
Could'nt the same argument be made against AA and its tendency to hire lesser educated Blacks & Latinos over White males in order to meet a set quota ?

Your assuming whites haven't been doing this all along.

Let's not forget that inferior whites have been allowed to succeed with their own affirmative action.. but it isn't called "affirmative action" -- it's just called "that's the way it goes." How did GW Bush get into harvard and yale? "Well, that's just the way it goes." How do incompetent whites with social and fraternal connections to their incompetent white superiors continue to rise up the ladder in businesses and corpiorations and government? "Well, y'know -- that's just the way it goes." This country runs on a vast network of prejudices, assumptions, and intentions that benefit white people at the expense of non-whites.



Which is another way affirmative action benefits all of us. A more educated black comunity is a more econmically successful black community that produces better educated black children -- and that creates a cycle that we would all find beneficial... unless we want to keep black people shut out of such an cycle that have benefitted whites all along... and why would anyone want to do that?


This black candidate was clearly superior. Trust me, an economics major at University Of Georgia is no where on par with a physics major from Cornell, especially since he was the only Sub A average candidate accepted.

Affirmative action is the opportunity for a equally qualified black to make it in a society that still does not allow an equally qualified or superior one to make it...

To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple résumés from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the résumés, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites. So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent résumés. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four résumés were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.
No single employer was sent two identical résumés, and the names on the résumés were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of résumés.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Within racial groups, applications with men's or women's names were equally likely to result in calls for interviews, providing little evidence of discrimination based on sex in these entry-level jobs.

There were significant differences in interview-request rates among the nine names associated with black women, but not among the names within each of the other groups.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/001253.html

hERE IS ANOTHER STUDY http://www.metrocouncil.org/doing_business/DBE/dbenterprise/DBEMay02.pdf


I am not a proponent of Affirmative action as it stands,( it is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world) but don't assume it's the only social structure around benefitting inferior racial candidates, wether they are white, black, hispanic etc.

In addition, many businesses are not constrained by AA. (I believe only government jobs) As a business owner with over a million dollars in overhead (rent alone is $25,000 a month) I am not going to give a $hit if I have a minority quota despite my liberalism. Hell, I'd hire a office manager or insurance specialist who was a member of the KKK if they had impecable referances and experience. I want the best damn person for the job. My non-physician employees number close to 20... all wanting retirement benefits, medical benefits, raises every year, bonuses, paid vacations etc. However, I probably have about equal amounts of blacks and whites, a Cambodian, (no Latinos because none have applied) and all are very productive and competant. I know I gave the best man, woman the job without consideration for their race or sex or religious preferences because my business's survival depended on it.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by adrenaline
I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of the South.

Hahaha! Here's a question - if a black guy gets the shakes from heroin withdrawal and holds up a liquor store, do you tell him "I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of blacks," or do you say "The system is to blame! You need Affirmative Action!"

I'm telling you guys, all these problems could be solved quite rapidly and for all time if, rather than blaming whitey for their troubles, the smart black people got together and said, "You know, maybe we should have more kids..."


--Mark

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Hahaha! Here's a question - if a black guy gets the shakes from heroin withdrawal and holds up a liquor store, do you tell him "I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of blacks," or do you say "The system is to blame! You need Affirmative Action!"

I'm telling you guys, all these problems could be solved quite rapidly and for all time if, rather than blaming whitey for their troubles, the smart black people got together and said, "You know, maybe we should have more kids..."


--Mark

It's a stereotype, not the truth. Almost like the comment that all blacks blame whities for their troubles...(Had to laugh since most my friends are black (my fellow mountan bike buddies) as well as collegues and I've never heard such a stereotypical blame game from them.) There are those that do,unfortunately, and they only undercut the others' efforts to rise above that. Similar to the stereotype that all whites blame the Asians and other minorities for "stealing" their jobs. It's especially a joke regarding the Mexicans, who work in jobs and conditions most Amercians, no matter how desperate, would work in anyway.

As he stated, racism is rampant in other parts of the country too. (Midwest according to him) so the South doesn't have the monopoly on that.



As for uncontrolled breeding, it's the lower socioeconomic classes, both white and blacks, that is associated with outbreeding the upper socioeconomic class.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by peonyu

Apparently racism in America has yet to be tackled in areas of higher learning, this is very discouraging news.

Rot and piffle. Statistics of results do not show causes. After listing all that stuff about the current situation, you assume the cause is racism. Why? Are racial differences the first thing leaping into your mind when you view results? If so, I suggest you examine your own biases.

 

[Nereid]

adrenaline wrote: As for uncontrolled breeding, it's the lower socioeconomic classes, both white and blacks, that is associated with outbreeding the upper socioeconomic class.

Has it not been ever thus? just about everywhere in the world?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Let's not forget that inferior whites have been allowed to succeed with their own affirmative action

Claims of white nepotism are grossly and routinely exaggerated.

How did GW Bush get into harvard and yale?

I should preface this by saying that I'm as surprised as you are.

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=39

Cecil Adams writes:

(Bush's SAT are) 640 on both verbal and math, good enough for 88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now

Then I write:

In a world where SAT and IQ were equivalent, these scores would give Bush an IQ near 115. However, his C average gives us reason to doubt it's this high. 115 is probably the upper limit.

But elsewhere Charles Murray, "IQ expert" and author of The Bell Curve Estimates Bush with an IQ of 125. Linda Gottfredson concurs:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040114-074349-3947r.htm

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International: "I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile."

My own estimates are probably not as good as Murray's or Gottfredson's, but if he seems dull now it's quite possible that his intelligence decreased with age. Whatever the case, Bush wasn't a dummy who got into college strictly because he was the son of his father.

It's a stereotype, not the truth.

You can't dismiss one stereotype (on blacks) because it's a stereotype and accept another stereotype (on Southerners) because it's a stereotype. This is what I was pointing out.

More importantly, if there's any lesson I've learned, it's that stereotypes often contain a great deal of truth. Yes, really. Here are three examples, (two of which were chosen specifically for their relevance to this discussion).

"Smart guys wear glasses." (It's true; Myopia and IQ correlate at approximately 25%. This correlation is intrinstic, and it appears that the same gene or genes responsible for myopia are responsible for brain growth.)

"Southerners are stupid." (Well, IQ scores in America appear to decrease as you travel south and east. This phenomenon is more pronounced for blacks than whites, rendering a larger black/white IQ gap in the south than in the north.)

"Blacks are crime-prone." (This is also true. If you check The color of Crime you'll find that blacks are as much more crime-prone than whites as men are more crime prone than women - about seven times more. Most strikingly, the murder rate in any given area in the U.S. correlates at 70% with the proportion of the population that is black! Whatever explanations for this phenomenon you can posit, the fact is that the raw stereotype is true.)

It's quite common for research to affirm stereotypes.

racism is rampant in other parts of the country too

How is it that a democratic society which instituted anti-racist policies such as Hate crime laws and Affirmative Action can be a society where "racism is rampant?" Pardon me, but it's quite obvious that the reverse is true. Think about which is the greater insult - "racist!" or "bioegalitaran!"

No one in the modern era has ever been fired for being a bioegalitarian. (They've just been wrong.)

As for uncontrolled breeding, it's the lower socioeconomic classes, both white and blacks, that is associated with outbreeding the upper socioeconomic class.

Hey, there we go! Now that's quite true. Here's a related tidbit:

The proper analysis is to examine the number of live births per woman (including those with no children, and regardless of their marital status) at approximately the end of their child-bearing years, say, age 45. Such data are available from the U.S. Census. We know that the number of years of education by adult women correlates about 0.60 with their IQs. The Census data show higher birthrates at the lower levels of education than at the higher levels, for both Blacks and Whites.

--Arthur Jensen, "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics" page 181

So tell us, Adrenaline - if there is a class disparity for IQ, and if the lower classes are outbreeding the upper classes, and if there is a relationship between education and IQ, and the undereducated are outbreeding the educated, and if these trends remain stable, what do you think will happen to the genetic component to IQ after, oh, 200 years?

Has it not been ever thus? just about everywhere in the world?

No it hasn't, Nereid, and Lynn shows as much. I won't bother to elaborate, as you will no doubt invent twenty spurious reasons why Lynn's research into dysgenics must be discarded. Instead I'll appeal to your sense of logic:

Other factors, including strength and luck, entered in, but the chief dynamic force for human progress was intelligence. On the other hand, the main evolutionary drive of the large apes, many of whom were also ground dwellers and partially erect, was in the direction of greater muscles instead of greater brains. Intelligence came to be the most human thing about humans.

In a general way we can say that the brain volume doubled during the ten million years or so of man ape evolution. . . . and that it has on the average doubled again during the last million years.

Robert Klark Graham, The Future of Man

So in other words, for millions upon millions of years, we've been getting smarter - logically, fertility must have always been skewed in favor of the brighter rather than the duller. It's only in conditions of civilization that the trends reverse and become dysgenic.


--Mark

 

[adrenaline]

So tell us, Adrenaline - if there is a class disparity for IQ, and if the lower classes are outbreeding the upper classes, and if there is a relationship between education and IQ, and the undereducated are outbreeding the educated, and if these trends remain stable, what do you think will happen to the genetic component to IQ after, oh, 200 years?

Since I come from that bottom of the socioeconomic class with both parents without any advanced education, (mom never went past 5th grade) and dad flunked college on a basketball scholarship before going to vietnam, and they did breed three of us, I don't have much respect for these "statistical predictions" I deal with these statistical epidimeological predictions in clinical practice and know that depending on the question asked, the outcome can be different. Since I am at the bottom of the bucket in achievement, my brother Luke Blanchford graduated Princeton with a physics/philosphy degree ( so you can check the princeton alumni) and my sister is a big time CEO, I have no respect for these IQ predicitons. My parents IQ combined were less than the individual brother's and twin sister's of 180 and 150 respectively. I believe, the IQs will remain the same. It's a matter of giving each generation, no matter the socioeconomic class, the ability to reach their full potential.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Since I come from that bottom of the socioeconomic class

So do I.

I don't have much respect for these "statistical predictions"

Predictions aren't supposed to have 100% accuracy. But they are how science proceeds. Your skepticism not withstanding, I'll throw in my towel with science over personal experience.

My parents IQ combined were less than the individual brother's and twin sister's of 180 and 150 respectively.

An interesting anomaly, which does nothing to dispel the relationship between social class and IQ, nor the relationship between education and IQ, nor indeed the relationship between criminality and IQ. Again, I'll side with science over someone else's unverifiable personal claims any day.

I believe, the IQs will remain the same.

Then you do not believe in Darwinian Evolution. Tell us, adrenaline - if not via differential fertility, how is it that humans came to be more intelligent than every other living primate? I am interested to hear your alternative theory to standard Darwinian evolution. Perhaps your ideas will become famous someday!


--Mark

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
.


Then you do not believe in Darwinian Evolution. Tell us, adrenaline - if not via differential fertility, how is it that humans came to be more intelligent than every other living primate? I am interested to hear your alternative theory to standard Darwinian evolution. Perhaps your ideas will become famous someday!


--Mark

You asked me if our IQs will be the same if the lower socioeconomic class, and lower IQs, outbreed the upper socioeconomic with higher IQs. The former class will soon outnumber the latter category so by statistical averaging the overall IQ will drop. However, I believe with better prenatal care access by the lower socioeconomic class (especially with such programs as the Peachcare for Kids in Georgia) which we know does affect intelligence in utero and better overall health care that many states are now offering to the children population, these factors will help improve their nutritional status and overall health, and thus, those in the lower rungs of society will start to "catchup" in terms of natural IQ, although social expectations may still be an impediment.

As for the upper socioeconmic class and the disappearance of the strong middle class, their overall dwindeling numbers will bring down the average IQ contributed by this segment of the society. Thus, the overall IQ I believe will remain the same. This has nothing to do with evolutionary biology...(which I prefer over Darwinism since evolution has changed since his original conception.) kind of like calling all physics, Newtonianism. This is more social and societal evolution that I forsee. But this is all speculation.

Predictions aren't supposed to have 100% accuracy. But they are how science proceeds. Your skepticism not withstanding, I'll throw in my towel with science over personal experience

Statistical predictions in many fields of science may be ok by you, but in medical epidemiology when dealing with the interplay of society and biological phenomenom, there have been spectacular successes as well as dismal failures...so I will continue to look at all such statistical speculations as just that, speculation.


As for anomalies such as my family's, we all know there is a basic tendency by all researchers to throw those out of the data base, so to speak. This happens all the time in medical research (The history behind the discovery of H. Pylori as a causative organism behind duodenal ulcers is a classic example of how 99% of the clinicians were throwing out anomolic data to fit their hypothesis on what causes ulcers until one set of researchers came along from Perth, Australia. Many felt the spiral organims found on the specimens were anamalies of pathological processing). It is just as apparent that such anomolies may not be so unimportant in many of the social science predictions but can more easily be "thrown out" because they don't regress to the mean. In other words, it is hard to statstically analyze or come up withh a prospective research model to study how environment may play a role in developing IQs. I'm sure social psycolgists are working on that. My mom home schooled us until we were 6 and then we entered chinese public schools. Out of ignorance, she thuoght she had to prepare us to add, subtract, multiply and divide by two places by then. Needless, to say, the first 3 grades were fun. Here, her lack of education and thus, expectations, probably induced the anomaly. Rather than ignore this as such, for me, it shows that we can affect a child's potential with early, albiet, non traditional support and nurturing.

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: No it hasn't, Nereid, and Lynn shows as much. I won't bother to elaborate, as you will no doubt invent twenty spurious reasons why Lynn's research into dysgenics must be discarded.

Translation? Neried has pointed to serious flaws in Lynn's work which Nachtwolf can't address, so rather than admit as much, Nachtwolf uses debating tactic #15 - 'I'm too busy and too clever, just trust me'

Nachtwolf wrote: Instead I'll appeal to your sense of logic:

Other factors, including strength and luck, entered in, but the chief dynamic force for human progress was intelligence. On the other hand, the main evolutionary drive of the large apes, many of whom were also ground dwellers and partially erect, was in the direction of greater muscles instead of greater brains. Intelligence came to be the most human thing about humans.

In a general way we can say that the brain volume doubled during the ten million years or so of man ape evolution. . . . and that it has on the average doubled again during the last million years.

Robert Klark Graham, The Future of Man. So in other words, for millions upon millions of years, we've been getting smarter - logically, fertility must have always been skewed in favor of the brighter rather than the duller. It's only in conditions of civilization that the trends reverse and become dysgenic.

This is a joke, right? Conflating what might (or might not) have happened over 'ten million years or so' with what's happening (or not) to one tiny (<5%) fraction of humans in one part of the world, over the past ~50 years? Not as an extreme mismeasure of time as Velikovsky ...
Nachwolf: ~200,000 (50/10m)
Velikovsky: ~800,000 (5,000/4b)
creationists: ~2 million (6,000/13.7b).

 

[adrenaline]

regarding Bush.

...Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile."

My own estimates are probably not as good as Murray's or Gottfredson's, but if he seems dull now it's quite possible that his intelligence decreased with age. Whatever the case, Bush wasn't a dummy who got into college strictly because he was the son of his father.

By those estimates, Georgia which has the second lowest average SAT scores in the nation (combined 984) is overrun with the smartest 95th percentile in the nation. In addition, I guess I'll send my daughter to University of Georgia since they seem to have a more stringent admissions than Yale if they think Bush's SAT scores were adequete (average SATs are at least close to 1100) and it will be cheaper anyway.

 

[Njection]

I guess you mean in the US, not Chile or Patagonia?

No, I really meant South Africa. ;)

Is racial discrimination or racial prejudice an integral part of 'southern culture'?

I would say so.

What role do persons with dark skin play in 'southern culture'?

Throughout our history, I would say, they are best described as a socially subordinated class of servants distinct from the white population.

How does one become a 'white southerner'?

Socialization.

I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of the South.

So what? I asked you a few questions. Feel free to answer them.

1. Why should I care about discrimination against blacks?
2. Who decides what are and what are not problems?

 

[Njection]

It's a stereotype, not the truth.

Define 'truth'.

Almost like the comment that all blacks blame whities for their troubles...

Where did I make that argument?

(Had to laugh since most my friends are black (my fellow mountan bike buddies) as well as collegues and I've never heard such a stereotypical blame game from them.)

What's wrong with stereotypes?

There are those that do,unfortunately, and they only undercut the others' efforts to rise above that.

What makes you suppose the efforts of others 'rise above that'?

Similar to the stereotype that all whites blame the Asians and other minorities for "stealing" their jobs.

Who said anything about Asians and minorities "stealing" jobs?

It's especially a joke regarding the Mexicans, who work in jobs and conditions most Amercians, no matter how desperate, would work in anyway.

This sounds like a stereotype, actually.

As he stated, racism is rampant in other parts of the country too. (Midwest according to him) so the South doesn't have the monopoly on that.

If that is the case, then why should the South be singled out?

 

[Nereid]

Njection has said that he belongs to a group of people he calls 'white southerners', who share a culture he calls 'southern culture'. In answer to my question "Is racial discrimination or racial prejudice an integral part of 'southern culture'"? Njection replied: "I would say so".

I am curious to know whether George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are 'white southerners'. Also, those PF members who consider themselves to be 'white' and live in the southern part of the US, what do you feel about Njections' characterisation?

 

[Njection]

Njection has said that he belongs to a group of people he calls 'white southerners', who share a culture he calls 'southern culture'.

I did say that.

In answer to my question "Is racial discrimination or racial prejudice an integral part of 'southern culture'"? Njection replied: "I would say so".

I said that too.

I am curious to know whether George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are 'white southerners'.

I never suggested that every single white Southerner was a racist. Every single white Southerner does not have to be a racist for racism to be an integral part of 'Southern culture' either. We are discussing Southerners as a group here, not Southerners as individuals. C. Vann Woodward and W.J. Cash, whom I would consider the two leading authorities on the subject, would agree with this analysis.

Also, those PF members who consider themselves to be 'white' and live in the southern part of the US, what do you feel about Njections' characterisation?

I never suggested that a 'white Southerner' and a white resident of the South were the same thing.

 

[Nereid]

Njection: I never suggested that every single white Southerner was a racist. Every single white Southerner does not have to be a racist for racism to be an integral part of 'Southern culture' either. We are discussing Southerners as a group here, not Southerners as individuals. *SNIP

Njection: I never suggested that a 'white Southerner' and a white resident of the South were the same thing.

Thank you for the clarification (including the distinction between 'southerner' and 'Southerner').

What are the key characteristics of the 'white Southerners' group? Of the total population of the southern part of the US (the 'South'?), how many belong to the 'white Southerners' group? Are George W. Bush and Bill Clinton members of this group? How about adrenaline?

I'm still interested in what others - black, white, magenta, or any other colour - who live in the southern part of the US feel about Njection's characterisations of 'Southern culture' and the 'white Southerners' group.

 

[adrenaline]

Nereid, these are just my observations after living here for 11 years and married to a down home country Georgia boy.

As an outsider who has moved here permanently, I can tell you there is still clear distinction between a indeginous Southerner and one who moved down here ( even if the latter has lived in the South longer than a younger native.) They make a clear difference.

I consider Southerners like an immigrant ethnic group in that they have a sense of group identity based on their shared history and their cultural distinctiveness in the present. Two out of three Southerners are now urban folk, and most rural Southerners work in industry anyway, but the fossil remains of this old South can still be found as concentrations of poor, rural black Southerners (This population, together with poor, rural white Southerners in the Southern highlands, means that most Southern states are still at the bottom of the U.S. per capita income distribution. (Virginia, Texas, and Florida barely involved in plantation agriculture, and with little or no mountain population are exceptions.)

Because its history and its culture are somewhat different from the rest of the US, the South also exists as an idea. Many are fond of the South (some even love it, myself included); others have been known to view it with disdain. (And there are things that still need some improving) In either case, the South exists in people's heads and in their conversations.

From this point of view, the South will exist for as long as people think and talk about it, and as for its boundaries ...geeeee, the South begins wherever people agree that it does. As Southerners are fond of saying: it depends. To a Southerner, there is no question they are a southerner when asked , but geographically, do we include Texas, parts of Oklahoma, Florida (not considered south historically)? Why can I say "South" with some assurance that you'll know I mean Richmond and don't mean Phoenix? In addition, the South is as genuinely biracial population as I have seen. I believe both the black Southerners and white Southerners feel equally strong about their identity as Southerners. My Asian friends who were born and raised here, don't seem to have such a strong identity (although they have the southern accents.)

 

[Adam]

I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate any reason why the figures indicate racism...

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Adam
I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate any reason why the figures indicate racism...

Which particular figures are you referring to Adam? Why is it that you expect that any IQ/g figures might demonstrate racism (or not)?

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Nereid
Which particular figures are you referring to Adam? Why is it that you expect that any IQ/g figures might demonstrate racism (or not)?

The very point of the article in the opening post of this thread was that WHITE, MALE humans dominate certain positions. All discussion in the thread since then has been about equality and inequality between genders and ethnic groups. Statements of results do not in any way indicate any inequality in hiring and firing, or anything else, apart from results. The ONLY inequality they indicate is in the results achieved.

 

[Nereid]

Seems to me, on re-reading this thread Adam, that adrenaline has given quite detailed information that it germane to your question.

 

[Adam]

No. There has been no causal link established between the results shown and racism. Nothing.

There have, however, been unsupported assertions that "whites" get things easier, and always have, simply for being white.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by peonyu
Then Affirmitve action needs to be applied. Just as AA has to be applied in factories and Government jobs to make sure minorities are given the chance for employment, the same should be applied to Universities and the Professors that they staff.

So the fair thing to do is to Lay off 25% of the White professors, and replace them with Black and Hispanic professors to ensure a diverse and equal oppurtunity environment, just as what is done in all other professions.

To my knowledge, this has NEVER been done.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
No. There has been no causal link established between the results shown and racism. Nothing.

There have, however, been unsupported assertions that "whites" get things easier, and always have, simply for being white.

Except, of course, for the multiple studies that show that white people in general do have it easier, which you conveniently ignore.