What matters is ability
I have never before looked into the statistics of race, IQ because I have always looked at sociology, psychology, etc as a pseudo science, and I know statistics can be jigged with very easily. Even with real science, like physics, theories are built on randomly collected thoughts and ideas that stand up to some mathematical rigor in explaining the real world. Scientists like to think they are super rational and fall out with each other when they don't agree because that is "impossible", and boy do they sometimes fall out with each other in irrational ways.<g> Fact is science is just theories that's all, and two theories on the same subject can completely disagree as the math is based on different models.
So, did the standard google search on Black, White, IQ
and it came back with two statistical surveys, presented to institutional bodies about IQ. The statistics will probably be checked over very carefully in those surveys and accurate.
Arthur Jensen (1973) Essential conclusion is that there is a difference in IQ between black and white people of 15 points.
Flynn (1987) Essential conclusion is that there is a difference in IQ between successive generations of 10 to 20 points.
I have not read the original papers, or looked at the data. I would like to look at the data for an essential component that I will explain later. All I have read is the usual cantankerous arguments that always occurs when scientists disagree with one and another. -lol-
Anyway, finally we have a scientist who decides to do another irrational thing (rational thing is to chuck both theories out and start again -g-) and reconcile the data by proposing a more sophisticated model. By semiconductor manufacturing standards, it really is still a super simple model though, he is just considering a first order interaction. Dickens is an OK guy, he is just trying to get scientists to behave properly and be nice to one and another. This is a quote...
We hope it will reconcile social scientists who have divided themselves, sometimes with bitterness, between hereditarians who think genes dominant and environmentalists who think culture dominant. They are both right
brook.edu
I'm tempted to snigger a bit at this, but I can't unless I get my hands on the data set. It looks as if Dickens has done a good job all the same, and come up with an excellent model. What I'd like to see now is the percentage components of each factor in explaining the difference between the races.
(1) Hereditary difference
(2) Environment (Education)
(3) Interaction.
The interaction factor is the most interesting one. It can be split further.
(3.1) Black people going to good schools vs bad schools.
(3.2) White people going to good schools vs bad schools.
Now in the press (and everywhere I've looked) all we hear about is about black people (3.1) Crucial evidence is what happens to white people (3.2).
In my previous post, I mentioned the survey about identical twins. In good vs bad school environment they still come up with the same (lower then avg) IQ. Yeah, but they are still both black. What if you painted one of them white and sent them to a good school???
It's my suspicion that the hereditary factor (1) in Dickens model is vanishing small, and it's down to factor (2).
Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with black doctors, airline pilots, lawyers, anything once they have survived the appropriate tests and qualified in our probably biased education system.
Are you still with me Maurice? or are those maori genes still catching up -g- |
