Originally posted by fd ski:
Miko2d - you're making some bold statements there...
I would love to take credit for that but none of those is my original idea. Of course my primary expertise is not sociology or psychology.
Measure of IQ is a measure of effect not a cause. You are using it to justify that some races are better - oh excuse me, smarter - then others. I would never use that word "better" because it is a judgement of moral. I am using IQ to argue with real racists that some races are not
worse or less moral or lazier then others and difference in behavior is easily explained by difference in mental abilities among other things.
Adolf would have loved that, although your slant of this theory goes quite again that ( in another post you stated that Jews are hated because they are hardworking and "more intelligent then average" ). If Adolph mentioned that the Earth is round, would you ban astronomy and geography? He thought (like many other racists) that some races are inferior and inherently evil.
That does not mean that all races are equal.
As for jews, considerable numbers of studies indicate that ashkenazi jews are about 1 standard deviation higher on intelligence scale then average.
If you consider 3 standard deviations from average extremely smart, you would have 1,300 out of one million fall into that cathegory or 78,000 out of 60 million - about the population of Germany.
For ashkenasi jews that would be only 2 standard deviations above
their average, so 22,800 out of a million would fall into that category. Out of 3 million (number of jews in Germany before WWII) that would comprise 68,400.
Almost as much as out of the rest of the population not counting jewish cultural tradition of learning and mentally-demanding occupations. No wonder Hitler saw jews everywhere in top positions of influence. Simple math would predict that.
Of course it may be more attractive to attribute their success to jewish inherent evilness, greed and conniving, while not giving black a status of humans at all.
BTW, most people of oriental-asian decent have IQ about 3 points higher then average white.
Also, some processes in US society over the last four generations are leading to creation of a segment of population with extremely hight intelligence due to selection, social and geographical mobility.
That statement combined with you saying that you believe that inteligence is something hereditry for me is nothing more then racism. Experiments were conducted that I could not find flaws in. All other hypothesae (sp?) do not seem hearly as convincing. I have no choice but believe the results. How is that racism?
Education and social life of a child is a biggest factor in the development of the inteligence in a child. That statement contradict the experiment. IQ at birth or IQ of the parents are
much better predictors of a success in life then socioeconomical status at birth.
All things being eqial, education is a plus. Things get complicated because socioeconomical status and education also corellated with intelligence, but simple statistical methods allow you to factor them out and compare valid parameters.
To say that IQ is depended on race is something of a kick back to 1950s and segragation. HOUSE BILL NO. 246 by the State of Indiana of 1897 tried to set the value of Pi to 3.2 That would have been convenient but unfortunately not true.
If what you're saying is indeed true, then we should segregate the schools again because black kids will have degrading influance on white kids, right? That is what is and was happening.
On average a white parent sending his child to an average school (no special student selection) with more black kids can be sure he/she will be exposed to more antisocial behavior then if sent to a school with fewer black kids. Many people attribute it to black being evil while it is nothing more then less smart people more likely to act in certain ways.
Segregating schools by abilities of students would easily prove that black kids are no worse then white kids of equal intelligence.
I strongly recommend you rethink your view on this matter. I would love to. Do you have any data?
Since statistics does not work with individual people, I do not see how my views affect anyone - I hire people as a result of personal interviews, not statistics.
I believe that government programs intended to bring representations of minorities in various occupations or wealth distributions to the same percentage they have in general population are contrary to the nature and a doomed to fail. They also waste money and create lot of negative side effects for society - like witch hunts, backlash racism, reverse racism, etc.
Tests requirements are lowered until some groups can score as well as everyone else. Since that is not possible with any tests that reflect intelligence, the tests are oversimplified or abandoned altogether.
Also, colleges are fighting for minority students in order to fill quotes, even though the students are much lower then general requirements for that college. This way we get poor specialists and the rest of the students form negative impressions about minorities.
People far from real economy assume that discrepancy in income/positions is a result of racism, while in my 10 year career I have seen no indication of such.
In fact any minorities and first/second generation immigrants like chinese, peole from India, russians and others are very successfull.
I do not have the book with me, but if I remember correctly it shows that average black student of Harward has grades as good as the bottom 5th percentile of general grades. Out of 20 the [a]average[/a] black student is 20th.
And those are definitely not underprivileged students or the ones with not enough knowlege or any other reasons - they would not make it there otherwise.
It just means that admission procedure for minorities is so relaxed that much less capable students get in then it takes to study there competitively.
BTW, what is that about intelligence determined by education, etc?
In my life I saw plenty of examples of people growing in the same area with the same eduation and family income and when it came to studying no amount of effort or time made them successfull in something a brighter person could do without noticing.
So it must be either random or inherited.
It seems to me it is inherited
to a great degree.
Want to hear my opinion why women
on average are not as successfull as men in reaching top positions?
Guys, I see you have interest in the subject. Please read the book I mentioned and I would love to discuss specific points. People who wrote it knew what they were doing. I cannot reproduce it in a format of this forum.
miko
