Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (32903)	7/4/2010 6:14:42 PM
From: John	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

Enplusone! wrote: The "Flynne [sic] Effect" has been disqualified? Your original assertion, which I was responding to, stated, "...environmental factors are more significant." My response cited published data by Rushton and Jensen that effectively disqualifies the idea that the Flynn Effect can be used to show that "environmental factors are more significant [than heredity]". In fact, Rushton, Jensen, et al., have repeatedly shown that heredity is at least as important as environmental factors, and probably more so. ssc.uwo.ca excerpt: "In fact, Jensen’s latest statement of the hereditarian model, termed the default hypothesis, is that genetic and cultural factors carry the exact same weight in causing the mean Black–White difference in IQ as they do in causing individual differences in IQ, about 80% genetic–20% environmental by adulthood." The editorial you quoted said the Flynne [sic] Effect could not be used to make a statistically valid reason for the difference in white-black average IQ's. It is not disqualified as an observed phenomena. i.e increases in average IQ over time due to unknown or environmental factors. I did not suggest that intelligence is fixed, nor did I suggest that intelligence is exclusively genetic, but the facts indicate that intelligence is largely genetic, therefore racial parity is not possible. Interestingly, a study by Murray (2005) suggested that the IQ of Blacks in the U.S. decreased between 1983 and 2004. "They excluded the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), which Murray (2005) described as showing a loss of 1 IQ point for Blacks between 1983 and 2004." Further, Rushton and Jensen effectively debunked the flaws in Flynn's (and Dickens') arguments, in the text below. ssc.uwo.ca Looking at the other side of the coin, would you propose that state and federal educational funds be redirected based on these studies in average IQ vs Race? Yes, I certainly would. In fact, I would demand it. Tremendous resources have been exhausted in a futile effort to achieve intellectual and academic parity between the races in the United States. All such efforts have repeatedly met with failure over the decades, all at the expense and burden of primarily White taxpayers. Repeating such efforts, ad infinitum, is an insane venture by definition, because the results are always the same (e.g., racial parity is not achieved and the academic achievement gap is not narrowed). In contrast, I would rather see my tax dollars go toward the education of high-quality students based on their proven merit and intellectual ability, regardless of race, rather than students selectively chosen according to the misguided, holistic views of egalitarians. For example if funds were directed more towards children of tea drinkers rather then [sic] coffee drinkers, no matter how valid the statistics. Please remain serious if you want me to respond and debate your points.