White men still dominating science posts

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Zero]

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.

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.

 

[Njorl]

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

Considering Bush's social status, he would have almost certainly received intensive tutoring directed toward performance on the test. This was at a time when "Princeton Review" was unheard of. This would have given him an enormous competitive advantage compared to those untutored students. My buddy who ran a PR franchise assures me that bumping a student from 1000-1250 is fairly common. If he had the same preparation as the typical student, he probably would have scored 100-250 points lower. This would imply that Bush's IQ is probably significantly lower than 125. There is also the distinct possibility, considering his dissolute character and his manifest lack of intelligence, that someone took the test for him.

Another thing. How did he get into Yale with just a 1280 on his SAT's? 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.

Njorl

 

[Nachtwolf]

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.

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?

Of course, the forgotten ethnic groups which aren't included in your "everyone else" - East Asians & Ashkenazi Jews - are smarter than whites by about 5 and 10 IQ points respectively. Whites sure as hell aren't favored over these groups. If whites were given an unfair break, then we wouldn't see charts like this one, compiled by Thomas Sowell (a black man, incidentally) :

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Race

In his book Ethnic America, Dr. Thomas Sowell set up a point-scale index that graphed economic success in terms comparable to IQ by norming the national income average as 100 points:

Points - Ethnicity
172 - Jewish
132 - Japanese
115 - Polish
112 - Chinese & Italian
107 - Anglo Saxon & German
103 - Irish
100 - U.S. Avg.
99 - Filipino
94 - West Indian
76 - Mexican
63 - Puerto Rican
62 - Black
60 - Native American

People who think the failure of low-IQ minority groups can be explained by a racist conspiracy which benefits whites at the expense of everyone else are woefully ignorant.

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.

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.

Why?

"Because of the evil white people, and don't ask questions, you evil racist!"

So whites rush about in a tizzy of apoplectic anti-racism and institute all kinds of programs and charities and policies at their own expense to help out the failing minorities.

Billions of dollars later, they have diddly to show for it.

Eugenists can only pretend to be surprised.

*Pretends to be surprised*

By Njorl
he had the same preparation as the typical student, he probably would have scored 100-250 points lower.

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

 

[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.

 

[adrenaline]

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.

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

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.

 

[Zero]

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

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?

 

[hitssquad]

The g factor and self-health-care incompetency

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.

--
there are studies in America that show that whites are given unfair advatages... [A] 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. [/color]
--
http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html


Ability to work with a doctor might be regarded as a part of the g nexus. The g nexus predicts overall socio-economic competency relative to level of g.

--
Chapter 14
The g Nexus

The g factor derives its broad significance from the fact that it is causally related to many real-life conditions, both personal and social. These relationships form a complex correlational network, or nexus, in which g is a major node. [/color]
--
The g Factor. p544.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874




If blacks have lower IQs than whites, they might be expected to not be able to work as effectively with medical institutions as whites would. The study's popular write-up linked-to doesn't imply this is not the case. In fact, the popular write-up of the article explicitly states that it may indeed be the case:


--
"There may be a racial difference in the way treatment options are communicated to patients by their physician. That may lead to differences in a patient's understanding of what types of treatments are available," explains Oddone. "This may account for previous studies that found that African Americans tend to be less willing to undergo invasive procedures for preventing stroke." [/color]
--
http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html


Competency in communication, and competency in instances of complex decision-making, are -- as noted by Arthur R. Jensen in his book the g Factor -- considered key areas of expression of the g factor. Data indicating relatively low functionality in interaction with institutions is precisely what we might expect from a population characterized by a relatively low level of g.

We also can observe the relative incompetency of blacks in other health-related areas of complex decision making, such as diet, exercise, drug-use, sundry types of hygiene, self-medication, and folk-remedies. These incompetencies would concur with possible incompetencies in utilization of health services.




This popular write-up of this study also says there happens to be, in the particular case of this particular ailment, "a belief of many physicians that African Americans tend to have more plaque in their brain arteries. Physicians are generally less likely to recommend patients with blockages in the upper brain for carotid endarterectomy because it is much riskier for those patients." [/color] Therefore, there is no need to assume systematic discrimination to account for the results reported by the study.




Edit: added The g Factor quote[/color]


-Chris

 

[Adam]

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.

I know I've got it easier than kids in Vietnam who have to dodge old landmines every morning when they step outside (although in this case, we know the cause is a dumb-arse war). I can safely say that I have attained more years of formal education than the majority of Australians. Saying this gives absolutely no indication of the causes though, unless stated. You must realize there is a difference between cause and effect. There is a difference between accepting that one group has, or may have, better results in society, and assuming the cause of that is racism. I have not seen one link between the results listed and racism, apart from baseless assumptions. Why do people assume racism is the cause when average income for asian-descended families is higher than average income from african-descended families, for example?

 

[adrenaline]

The study proved Zero's point very well.

Also, you quoted the study out of context.

The study clearly states that a simple study such as ordering a carotid ultrasound or angiography, (standard of care in medical practice for evalulating a TIA,) was not ordered as it should in blacks who visit the same medical provider (the VA) as a white. Thus, a black vs. a white who sees a doctor for TIA's is not getting the standard of care as he should and access to the medical treatment facility is not in issue in the VA system that would account for differences in other settings.

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 study disproves any differences in anatomy that would make blacks less of a candidate for carotid endarterectomies.

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.

.

Besides, 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.

An equivalent bias and prejudice would be the following...
Diabetics usually have a higher chance of inoperable three vessel coronary disease versus a nondiabetic...does that mean we should not order cardiac catherizations when he has unstable angina (the cardiac equivalent of TIAs) even though a higher percentage of diabetics cannot get angioplasties or bypass surgeries and thus would be undergoing a invasive test , that is in itself, wrought with hazards? How silly..., but then so is not ordering a test in a black man because he may have a higher chance of inoperable or more problematic carotid arthresclerosis. (which is erroneous premise to begin with.)

Interesting that this was done in the South. Interesting that as an internist, I do 90 percent of the admissions for TIAs before they get to a neurologist, ordering a carotid ultrasound was never based on what race they were, it was based on clinical presentation as it should be.( Actually, I have never heard of this mythological differences in black vs. white anatomy of intracranial plaques in my 11 years of working up TIAs and it is not a standard belief in this institution at Medical College of Georgia)


The whole point of the article was that clinical differences did not explain why a simple test was not ordered as it should in blacks as often as whites. it wasn't access to medical care. The article did not offer the obvious explanation because it can't prove it, but the message is clear that there is a bias that exists. wether it's based on prejudice and discrimination or other confounding social variables , it doesn't matter, the bias is there and the blacks, when all things are equal, are getting less quality medical care.

 

[adrenaline]

Here is another study with something very simple. Influenza vaccines to high risk patients and access to care and socioeconomic differences did not account once again for the disparency. Can't say it's innate prejudice, but then what is? (Rates of COPD, Asthma etc. that put people at high risk are equal or higher in blacks.) I can tell you in clinical practice, the physician usually recommends the vaccine during a office visit for other routine matters,

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465222

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..

the whole point is, even the bastion of impartiallity, which medical doctors like to think of themselves (render quality care to everyone that entrusts their care in your hands) is wrought with innate biases, wether they are racially motivated or not, it exists.

 

[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:

• 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.

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.

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.

 

[adrenaline]

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:

• 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.

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.

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.

I agree with you Adam. However, these studies took into account access, insurance etc and many confounding social variables that do play a role in other areas of discrepancy such as cancer rates and mortality which are related to that and not bias on the medical establishment's part.

However, I chose the TIA and flu vaccines because of their simplicity. A TIA, no matter how mild the symptoms...from full blown paralysis of one side of the body for 15 minutes or slight slurring of speech for a few seconds, warrant the same workup regardless of severity of symptoms. Thus, all the other variables you mentioned, valid in other medical diseases (cancer, etc.) really is less of an issue ( you mentioned lack of demonstrable symptoms, isufficient symptoms...) 90 percent of TIAs that make it to the doctor has already resolved so a doctor orders the test by pure clinical history. That is the beauty of choosing this particular disease.

As you stated, we can't prove it's prejudicial, but the fact is, there is unequal treatment between blacks and whites when most of the variables are controlled for and a bias clearly exists. The medical establishment needs to push forward on why and correct this bias, but if it is socially based, it will never correct itself.

 

[hitssquad]

Why test if surgery has already been ruled out

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.

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.

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? If not, what is the basis for characterizing the study as showing that systematic quality-of-care discrimination along racial lines is occurring?





-Chris

 

[adrenaline]

The whole point of the article is that blacks have less surgical procedures because the basic test is not being ordered to evalute for significant blockages.


]


Ordering a carotid ultrasound is very different from ordering other tests when you are not certain about proceeding to surgery.

Perhaps it is the case that surgical candidacy tests are not ordered in cases where surgery has already been ruled out.

You cannot rule out if a person is a surigical candidate or not by just talking or examining a person who has had a TIA. (neurological signs have resolved, no carotid bruits may be heard with significant stenosis etc.) It's not like forgoing an MRI when a person has bad back pain but the reflexes etc . are all normal and I know the person has a nonsurgical disc problem by exam.

The severity of TIA symptoms do not correlate with blockage and it is a known fact that there is a clear advantage if there is a 70- 80% blockage or more in the decision for surgery over medical treatment with a blood thinner for those with less than 70-80 % blockage.

Thus, it is a key fork in the medical decision road.

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

The only other option without a carotid ultrasound is to place someone on coumadin, a very variable, toxic, closely monitored drug that must be checked every 4 weeks for the rest of their lives. Who wants that? In addition, if ther are no significant plaques, then no surgery or coumadin is needed and only asprin or plavix is then initiated. Thus, the carotid ultrasound is still a key role in making further medical decisions even when not opting for surgery.
It was no accident they chose this over say, cardiac catherizations, where the confounding variables you mentioned would play a greater role.

The basic workup for TIAs, the bread and butter of an Internist, always involves a cartoid ultrasound. Because it is not invasive,wether someone is medically saavy or not, it is a very easy test to convince someone of, unlike a cardiac catherization. It is medically negligent if not ordered (fortunately no one can sue the VA) so they can practice substandard medicine. They practiced substandard medicine, and they did it selectively more so for blacks than whites, wether it was intentionally prejudicial or not, as you and Adam stated, it exists and must be corrected.

 

[Zero]

Well, we know that Adam has a racial bias, since he lists "hostile towards staff" as a reason blacks get substandard health care. Of course, when I read those words, I hear the words "savage jungle bunnies don't know how to behave around good white folk", but surely he can't mean that, can he?

 

[Adam]

Zero, your entire last post qualifies as an ad hominem attack. Go slap your parents for the poor upbringing they gave you.

Once again you make the mistake of assuming ridiculous things. Re-read what was posted.

 

[Zero]

Good morning, Adam. Don't get your sheet in a knot, ok? Seriously, where did you come up with "Hostile behaviour toward staff" as a likely reason why black people get substandard medical care?

 

[Njorl]

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

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

 

[Zero]

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

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.

Bush seems to have some form of intelligence, however. He is brilliant at remembering people's names, for instance. He is also, from all accounts, naturally able to identify people's buttons and knows how to manipulate opinion. None of this stuff would show up on an IQ test, but does that make his form of intelligence invalid?