White men still dominating science posts

[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.

 

[Zero]

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.

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?

 

[hitssquad]

SAT scores needed to get into elite schools

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.

Note to readers: PR stands for Princeton Review.
http://www.princetonreview.com/

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

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

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

...it is conceivable that Bush was well above the 10th percentile of his freshman class as far as SAT score is concerned.

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.

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.

 

[Loren Booda]

I am a white male with an MS in physics. I have a disability (schizoaffective disorder) that has put me through as much Hell as most oppressed minorities in the U. S. experience.

I was a contractor to a minority small business; the first white in the over 50 years (as assistant Scoutmaster) of my Scout troop; and a volunteer at Davis Memorial Goodwill Industries (over 95% black). I cannot in good conscience work in physics while ignoring the plight of the suffering or the ignored. The only credit I ask for are those wonderful memories and not to discriminated against because of what I appear to be.

(I got into Yale with 800 Math and 690 Verbal while self-medicated on pot, one Hell that I eventually got over. Princeton Review wouldn't have me.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

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?

The point is that the particular talent represented by adult g has been shown to be the best predictor of income and ses in the striver range.

By striver range I mean this: the income distribution can be broken into two parts. The lower part has a curve like a log-normal. The upper part has a power law distribution. They represent strivers and rich people, respectively. G doesn't predict well in the power-law part of the curve, and that is the part of the curve the Bush family inhabit. But everybody who works for a living, blue collar or white, is on the striver curve, and that's where g predicts success - or lack of success. This is not racism, it is understood as well by Sowell, who is a distinguished black scholar, as by Jenson.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

He's a politician: he is a salesman.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Well, salesmen tend to have above-average IQs.

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/smartpie.htm

115 IQ is also the average for such occupations as salesman, nurse, or technician.


Here's a second source:

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. In their book, Know Your Child’s IQ, Glen Wilson and Diana Grylls outline occupations typical of various IQ levels:

140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.
130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical)
120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers.
110 Foremen; Clerks; Telephone Operators; Salesmen; Policemen; Electricians.
100+ Machine Operators; Shopkeepers; Butchers; Welders; Sheet Metal Workers.
100- Warehousemen; Carpenters; Cooks and Bakers; Small Farmers; Truck and Van Drivers.
90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters.

I can't help but note that there is no profession listed for which the 80 IQ are well suited. Think about that for a bit.


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

This excerpt may be a good example of the limited usefulness of all this IQ stuff.

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.

The back of my small envelope says that if this list includes all the major occupations of the US today, then the US "National IQ" would be way above 100!

With the enormous changes in the US workforce - indeed, in the workforces in very many countries - over the past generation, who can tell how well suited a white male Ph D with an IQ of 120 is to being a Stenographer? Maybe he could learn Pashto and become a Pharmacist in Afghanistan?

 

[Njorl]

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

No, the link you listed shows the bottom of the middle 50% to be 1370. 1370 would be at the 75 percentile.

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

You're using a post on a board as a reference? That is no justification for this assumption.

...it is conceivable that Bush was well above the 10th percentile of his freshman class as far as SAT score is concerned.

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.

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

[/QUOTE]
Again, you seem to have confused 25% and 75%. Actually, the way they present their statistics, it is not possible to state the percentile for combined scores. It is highly likely that more than 75% of students scored above 1380, though there is a small chance that fewer did.

 

[Nachtwolf]

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.

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.

Your masturbatory nitpicking never ceases to amaze me, Nereid!


--Mark

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Njorl

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

You're using a post on a board as a reference? That is no justification for this assumption.

The content was referred to, not the post's might-be status as a non-contingent authority. That content was presented as a contingency, as implied by the use of the word assuming.

No, the link you listed shows the bottom of the middle 50% to be 1370. 1370 would be at the 75 percentile:

Again, you seem to have confused 25% and 75%.

The word used was percentile.

• Main Entry: percentile
  Function: noun
  
  : a value on a scale of one hundred that indicates the percent of a distribution that is equal to or below it (as in performance) <a score in the 95th percentile is a score equal to or better than 95 percent of the scores>

(Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 3.0[/color])



Within a given IQ distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, an IQ of 80 is approximately at the 10th percentile and an IQ of 120 is approximately at the 90th percentile. This is the standard way of using the word percentile.

The combined SAT I score of 1370 -- assuming percentile scores for verbal and math can be combined to obtain full-scale percentile scores -- because it is equal to or better than 25% of the combined SAT I scores submitted to Yale, is at Yale's 25th percentile, not Yale's 75th percentile (which is 1560):
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1846&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Yale%20University

Actually, the way they present their statistics, it is not possible to state the percentile for combined scores. It is highly likely that more than 75% of students scored above 1380, though there is a small chance that fewer did.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure if it really is impossible to state the combined score percentiles while knowing only the separate percentiles, but I will try to determine that.

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf: Your masturbatory nitpicking never ceases to amaze me, Nereid!

Didn't you say that sexual prowess correlates with intelligence?

How about the correlation between intelligence and 'accuracy' and 'attention to detail'? Seems that'd be pretty important for success in these occupations:
"*SNIP
140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.
130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical)
120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers.
*SNAP"

Corollary? -> Nachtwolf's inaccuracy and lack of attention to detail suggests that he would be more suited to these occupations, despite his assertion of intellectual superiority:
"90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters."

 

[Netme]

When one becomes wealthy and needs no more for tiresome work a certain degree of corruption will occur. They will have thought of themselves as a higher being among those who still need to work to live. They will believe that their ways of thinking have brought them into this higher state of being and so force creates corruption. The underlings are presumably though of as weaklings, unfit by god to possesses such behaviors of their kind, such levels of thinking as their kind.
"So this is the life I give upon you weaklings. I will show you mercy and give upon to you the olden jobs of slavery modernized with current environmental and constitutional conditions. I will bestow upon you the basic rights of our people which will allow for your protection in case you be threatened in any physical way so as to prevent you from not completing these jobs. You will create offspring for continuation of this process and force them into governmental schooling in which they will be taught in a way that will most likely not be understandable to them. The teachers in this schooling will have been taught to dismiss such acknowledged behavioral disturbances as result of your insuperior offspring and will allow for your student to proceed onto the next level. When your child has reached his full potential and sees that he is unable to function along with our kind in schooling, he will then drop out from which he will begin to learn the basis means to your existence. He will see the hardships of your daily struggle to maintain the existence of your physical bodies and will feel remorse for you. He will begin to assist you with your existential duties in maintaining our current environmental pleasures and he will learn quickly. With time he will have developed a positive attitude towards these duties and will see it as a bright future for him..."

 

[Dayle Record]

This is a no-brainer. Hee. The truth about this is that the "system" is designed for and by the left brained deathgrip on the sciences, in a long lived marrige with "baboon type" social heirarchy. That is why we do the most pointed and awful things with Science, Industry, and World Governance. The only wonderful things happening in these realms have to do with trying to fix the big mess we have made. I see layer upon layer, of error, and attempts to continue in error, and attempts to repair a basically broken state of existence. How soon will it be that we have to buy the air we breathe?

If you think there isn't something seriously wrong with the picture, go to your local utilities company. They have all become armed forts. My local gas company has a ten foot tall piked fence around it, and tank stops out front once you are in the gates, and someone like "Oddjob" from the Bond films mans the front desk. I actually asked one of these guys at the power company, " You aren't really here to serve my needs, are you?", smiling, "No" he replied. I said, "It is really more like a twist your head off kind of thing, isn't it" Smiling, he nodded yes. This conversation took place quietly, and kind of jokingly, but it was the way it was.

The reason I mention this, is because as these "men of science", design our world for us, since the world is so inept at being, I guess; they have some things they plan to take away from all of us in the name of science, and their higher intelligence, and therefore ability to better work in our best interests. Many things that we take for granted are no longer on our tables. We now take for granted that the air is seriously polluted, and the water, and the land. There is not a plan to alter the means by which that happens, nor is there a plan to outline the basic rights of planetary life, including the rights for unpolluted air, water, land, and most importantly the electromagnetic energies at large that interface with our ability to maintain our individuality.

Apparently without any permission being asked the space weather is being controlled so that satellites function better. The weather in general is well on the way to being controlled by that big array in Alaska, and large holes in the energy shielding of our planet are being created for fun and profit by, Raytheon. These people have been carefully promoted and compartmented because they perform well in their niches and obey. This is Science, without ideals of mercy, compassion, service to the whole. This is where the left brain thing, has been hurting the daylights out of us, and now with the capacity for grand global control systems; some sort of whole ethic has to emerge. Value theory, who, what is most valueable to the most of life on this world? To have a very narrow spectrum of individual, make these determinations, based on corporate futures, poor us. So why is Science dominated by white males? Because they do what they are told.

 

[Nereid]

So why are you using a PC, the internet, etc to join in our discussion here? Wouldn't you be happier living on Ducie Island?, where the air in unpolluted, the water falls from the sky, and the land untilled (you may not like the rats, but white scientists had nothing to do with putting them on the island). Be sure to leave your anti-biotics at home (though I can't really understand why you feel a life expectancy of a couple of decades, at most, is a good thing).

 

[Dayle Record]

PCs are a great way to communicate. I never mentioned my "feelings" about life expectancy. I doubt that my happiness is at the core of your concerns.

Think about it though, antibiotics might just be another one of those bandaids run amok. What if when we learned about microorganisms, we just cleaned up, instead of trying to kill everyting is sight? What if we learned that overpopulation is a problem, and dealt with that, instead of facilitating a life for most humans that more resembles feed lot farming, than a rich, simple life, lived? In some ways the Greeks had it all, and the Gods were right to chain Prometeus to that rock, for bringing fire to man.

 

[ShawnD]

You wouldn't say that if you actually lived during those times. Did you know that a poor person of today lives a heck of a lot better than any king before 1900? Even most poor people have running water, at least some basic heating and an insulated house/apartment, electricity, a phone, and basic nutrition. An 18th century king isn't able to boast about having any of those except for maybe running water (pump inside the castle?).

 

[Nereid]

PCs are a great way to communicate. I never mentioned my "feelings" about life expectancy. I doubt that my happiness is at the core of your concerns.

Think about it though, antibiotics might just be another one of those bandaids run amok. What if when we learned about microorganisms, we just cleaned up, instead of trying to kill everyting is sight? What if we learned that overpopulation is a problem, and dealt with that, instead of facilitating a life for most humans that more resembles feed lot farming, than a rich, simple life, lived? In some ways the Greeks had it all, and the Gods were right to chain Prometeus to that rock, for bringing fire to man.

A significant percentage of people living in developing economies do not yet have PCs, the internet, running water, electricity, etc, esp those in rural areas. When given the choice, they seem - overwhelmingly - to want these material things. They also don't like getting sick (and their behaviour - in general - does seem to indicate that they know about basic hygiene) and dying at 40 (or, more accurately, having so many of their infants die before they reach their 5th birthday).

re overpopulation: getting from here today to there tomorrow will involve, for the developed economies, handling the 'pension time-bomb'. If your concern is about population in general, you are surely aware that the population in many developed economies is only growing because of immigration (the natural rate is below zero)?

 

[mee]

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.

I have had an African black anthropology professor that was hired for god knows what reason and was the most inept professor I have ever seen. I barely showed up to class because it was a joke and got an "A" I believe because the professor liked me. I'm not sure hiring professors because they are in the minority groups is a good idea unless they are competent professors as well. BTW, another anthropology professor I had was a seventy year old woman who had been around a long time, knew Marget Mead, and got her position without any special treatment of which I know and was head of the department. I'm not sure affirmative action as more than a search for competent professors of any heritage is a good idea.