Has it not been ever thus? just about everywhere in the world?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.
Claims of white nepotism are grossly and routinely exaggerated.Let's not forget that inferior whites have been allowed to succeed with their own affirmative action
I should preface this by saying that I'm as surprised as you are.How did GW Bush get into harvard and yale?
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.It's a stereotype, not the truth.
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!"racism is rampant in other parts of the country too
Hey, there we go! Now that's quite true. Here's a related tidbit:As for uncontrolled breeding, it's the lower socioeconomic classes, both white and blacks, that is associated with outbreeding the upper socioeconomic class.
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:Has it not been ever thus? just about everywhere in the world?
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?
So do I.Since I come from that bottom of the socioeconomic class
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.I don't have much respect for these "statistical predictions"
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.My parents IQ combined were less than the individual brother's and twin sister's of 180 and 150 respectively.
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!I believe, the IQs will remain the same.
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
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
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: 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.
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 ...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.
...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.
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'?
I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of the South.
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.
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: 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
Thank you for the clarification (including the distinction between 'southerner' and 'Southerner').Njection: I never suggested that a 'white Southerner' and a white resident of the South were the same thing.
Which particular figures are you referring to Adam? Why is it that you expect that any IQ/g figures might demonstrate racism (or not)?Originally posted by Adam
I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate any reason why the figures indicate racism...
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)?
To my knowledge, this has NEVER been done.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.
Except, of course, for the multiple studies that show that white people in general do have it easier, which you conveniently ignore.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.
Adam, what you are saying still doesn't refute the multiple studies which show that white people have it easier than everyone else in a multitude of areas, including hiring practices.Originally posted by Adam
I repeat: results have been shown. Not one link to racism as a cause has been shown. Results have been shown, then racism has been mentioned, but no link between the two has been shown. I can't make it any simpler for you at this time.
Originally posted by Nachtwolf
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."
--Mark
Um, whites are 10-15 IQ points smarter than your so-called "everyone else." Why would you expect "everyone else" to do as well as whites?By Zero
Adam, what you are saying still doesn't refute the multiple studies which show that white people have it easier than everyone else in a multitude of areas, including hiring practices.
Exactly. The incredible success of East Asians and Jews is routinely ignored, while Blacks, Native Americans, Latinos, and the other darlings of the liberal media fail.By Adam
Not one link to racism as a cause has been shown. Results have been shown, then racism has been mentioned, but no link between the two has been shown.
Njorl, don't you think Murray & Gottfredson know how to do their jobs? Why do you immediately assume that Bush's scores must be inflated 250 points? Can the SAT-testees really be tutored to increase their scores by up to 250 points? Do you have any data to show that it can? (Here's a hint - the information at my disposal suggests that gains like you describe are outlandish, Njorl).By Njorl
he had the same preparation as the typical student, he probably would have scored 100-250 points lower.
Originally posted by Zero
You too are missing the point...IQ tests aren't teh be-all of intelligence, especially since they tend to be skewed by economic and cultural factors in the first place. For instance, we know that certain countries weed out the college-bound students early, and send everyone else to trade schools. When they do that, they eliminate those likely to score low on IQ and other tests from the testing group.
Plus, like I said, there are studies in America that show that whites are given unfair advatages. For instance, one study showed that job resumes sent out with "black-sounding" names and great resumes were less likely to get call-backs for jobs than resumes sent to the the same employers with more "white-sounding" names, even if the resume included a criminal record. There was another study that showed that if a black person and a white person went to the same doctor with the same ailment, the black patient received poorer treatment than the white patient.
The study of 803 men hospitalized at four Veterans Affairs hospitals also found that black patients are less likely than whites to receive a diagnostic imaging test that is a crucial first step in determining whether an individual is a candidate for the surgical procedure called carotid endarterectomy.
"We can rule out financial barriers as an explanation for our study's findings because patients in the VA system have equal financial access," says Eugene Oddone, M.D., director of the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, VA Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and chief/division of general internal medicine, Duke University Medical Center. Oddone was the lead researcher in the study.
Hmmmm...it makes me wonder why so many people think it is important to cling to the racial and racist stereotypes so fiercely that they are willing to ignore data, and in fact manufacture data if needed...I am curious if THAT has a genetic component as well?Originally posted by adrenaline
Your point about the discrepancy in medical treatments between blacks and whites is becoming embarassingly apparant. Here is one of many good studies. http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html
Actually, what Zero wrote was.Originally posted by adrenaline
Your point about the discrepancy in medical treatments between blacks and whites is becoming embarassingly apparant. Here is one of many good studies. http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html
Originally posted by Zero
Adam, what you are saying still doesn't refute the multiple studies which show that white people have it easier than everyone else in a multitude of areas, including hiring practices.
Oddone adds that the clinical differences do not explain why the African-American patients in the study were also less likely to receive carotid ultrasound or carotid angiography -- two important imaging tests to determine whether a patient has substantial plaque obstructions in the carotid artery, making him or her a candidate for carotid endarterectomy. The study found that 67 percent of the blacks in the study received carotid imaging, compared to 79 percent of whites
.This latest study also challenges claims of earlier research that found African Americans generally tend to have more blockages in blood vessels in the brain in addition to the carotid artery, which has been shown to increase the risk of carotid endarterectomy.
The results of this study provide 3 important additions to current knowledge about racial/ethnic inequalities in influenza vaccination. First, among patients with diabetes or chronic heart conditions and among those with 2 or more high-risk conditions, Whites appear more likely to be vaccinated than Blacks. Second, racial/ethnic differences in vaccination appear to be independent of gender, socioeconomic status, and access to health care. Finally, regardless of race/ethnicity, patients aged 64 years or younger seem less likely to be vaccinated than those aged 65 years or older.
Our results concur with the findings of earlier studies that have documented racial/ethnic differences in influenza vaccination in the United States[11-14,21,22] and suggest that although influenza vaccination coverage has improved over time, racial/ethnic differences have remained unchanged. In addition, our findings contradict the prevailing assumption that differences in socioeconomic status and access to health care between Whites and Blacks[23] are responsible for racial/ethnic differences in influenza vaccination..
Originally posted by Adam
I don't know why this is so difficult for some of you to understand. Why must you cling so tenaciously to your misconceptions?
A survey/study showing results is not an investigation into causes. I am not at all disputing any of the results. I am questioning why you leap to the "racism" conclusion for the cause without reason.
Possible causes for inclusion/exclusion:There could be a million other causes. In everything supplied in this thread, not one link between the results and any cause has been established.
- Lack of insurance.
- Inadequate insurance.
- Hostile behaviour toward staff.
- Surveyors edliberately selecting places which can not achieve the admission at the time in question. (Surveyors have, by the way, been known to select samples which will slant findings toward what they hope to demonstrate.)
- Lack of demonstratable symptoms.
- Insufficient symptoms to warrant certain procedures/treatments.
In short, and very simply:
- Results have been shown, and I do not dispute them.
- No cause has been shown.
- That the cause is racism remains an assumption until proven.
The popular write-up listed two reasons -- that don't have to do with systematic quality-of-care discrimination along racial lines -- why blacks might not be considered at the same rate as whites for carotid endarterectomies. The first reason had to do with doctor-patient interaction. The present author noted that 1.[/color] this is an area where the IQ of the patient can correlate positively in positive outcome; and 2.[/color] blacks have been found in general to have lower IQs. The second reason had to do with a perception among doctors that blacks are prone to a certain condition that might make them poor candidates for this type of surgery. In this second case -- regardless of whether or not the decision-making process is medically-correct or not -- a decision based upon race is in fact being made, but on its face it is not a decision to systematically give poor care to blacks.Originally posted by adrenaline
this still would not be a reason to forgoe a test (especially one as noninvasive as a carotid ultrasound) that would evaluate a patient's surgical candidacy, black or white.
Perhaps it is the case that surgical candidacy tests are not ordered in cases where surgery has already been ruled out.
If, for whatever reason, the doctor-patient dyad in a particular case has decided against surgery, is it appropriate at that point to order tests to evaluate surgical candidacy
Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Njorl, don't you think Murray & Gottfredson know how to do their jobs? Why do you immediately assume that Bush's scores must be inflated 250 points? Can the SAT-testees really be tutored to increase their scores by up to 250 points? Do you have any data to show that it can? (Here's a hint - the information at my disposal suggests that gains like you describe are outlandish, Njorl).
Even if the scores are inflated, his IQ is still very likely better than average. Think of it this way: Of course Bush is dumb - it's just that everybody else is that much dumber.
--Mark
Bush is a good illustration of something, though...his intelligence, and the way most of us look at it, is an example of a bias in how we define intelligence. For instance, Bush can't verbalize a rational thought about anything that he is not really interested in(which includes most policy issues, general governance, etc.) Does his inability to verbalize his thought automatically point to a failure in overall ability to thing? Not absolutely, but it is an easy assumption to make.Originally posted by Njorl
In this instance, if you related it accurately, it is quite clear that Murray and Gottfredson are not doing their job well. Maybe they are bad at what they do, or maybe they are choosing to be disingenuous. George W. Bush is not a typical datum. To treat him as such is unscientific. Doing so demonstrates that the author is a poor scientist, or unscrupulous.
I did not assume Bush's SAT was inflated by 250 points. I stated that an informed source believed PR could raise a score from 1000 to 1250 for a student who had no preperation other than standard schooling. It has less benefit for those who would score higher without prep, so I assumed a 250 point increase as an upper limit. Also, the prep courses did not do as well back then.
Regardless of this, his SAT and grades should have kept him out of Yale.
I have seen no sign that he is of above average intelligence. He shows little comprehension of cause and effect in economics or diplomacy. He is disdainful of science. He can not speak a coherent sentence. Every business endeavor in which he engaged was either a failure, or was salvaged by enormous gifts. His only achievements in life, being elected governer and president, were principally based upon his name and connections and the work of others. When left on his own, as in the interview with Tim Russert, he babbles incoherently even in the face of softball questions he knew were coming.
Njorl
Hmmm...so, sometimes a "standard" measure of intelligence isn't indicative of anything more than a person's ability to do well on a certain style of test. We pretty much all know this, there are tons of studies that show, for instance, that SAT scores aren't a great indicator of college success, for instance. We even have people willing to debate the meaning of Bush's SAT scores, and whether tutoring helped his score at all.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes that's a good characterization. On anything g-loaded he's miserable, but his people skills are high. If he had been born into a more average family, he might have wound up as a salesman.
Note to readers: PR stands for Princeton Review.Originally posted by Njorl
This was at a time when "Princeton Review" was unheard of... My buddy who ran a PR franchise assures me that bumping a student from 1000-1250 is fairly common.
For one, alumni credit is typical among illustrious schools.Another thing. How did he get into Yale with just a 1280 on his SAT's?
Princeton's 25th percentile today is only 1380.I imagine that their standards are as tough as Princeton's. Princeton only accepted my lowly 1420 because I had good grades from a good high school.
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...so, sometimes a "standard" measure of intelligence isn't indicative of anything more than a person's ability to do well on a certain style of test. We pretty much all know this, there are tons of studies that show, for instance, that SAT scores aren't a great indicator of college success, for instance. We even have people willing to debate the meaning of Bush's SAT scores, and whether tutoring helped his score at all.
And yet, for the purposes of racial discrimination, we are supposed to accept that a standardized test can be applied to people from different countries, cultures, socio-economic situations, and levels of formal education, and somehow "prove" anything?
He's a politician: he is a salesman.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes that's a good characterization. On anything g-loaded he's miserable, but his people skills are high. If he had been born into a more average family, he might have wound up as a salesman.
Originally posted by hitssquad
Note to readers: PR stands for Princeton Review.
http://www.princetonreview.com/
For one, alumni credit is typical among illustrious schools.
Second, even today, Yale's 25th percentile is only 1370.
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1846&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Yale%20University
You're using a post on a board as a reference? That is no justification for this assumption.Assuming today's SAT I is scored somewhat more liberally than the pre-1974 SAT...
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fbrainboardsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=4.topic&index=5
He was almost certainly in the bottom 25%, more likely in the bottom 10%, as his score was 100 points below what is now the 75th percentile. I'm sure he had plenty of legacies for company down there....it is conceivable that Bush was well above the 10th percentile of his freshman class as far as SAT score is concerned.
Princeton's 25th percentile today is only 1380.
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1133&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Princeton%20University
Again, the 25th percentile score may have been even lower in the time period in which you mailed in your Princeton application.
-Chris
Well, I know that there have been incredible advances in the field of sales during the last 30 years, which have changed the field enormously and allowed salesmen to function at optimal level - even while droolingly mentally handicapped! - through the use of neurohancers and metabolic boosters available in every corner drugstore, but George W. is a bit of an olderster, now, isn't he? When would he have come onto the job market? Oh that's right, maybe sometime around 30 years ago, when my information was perfectly current.The list of occupations looks curiously dated, and when you look at the sources listed in the link Natchwolf posted, you will find that the primary reference comes from a 1974 study.
