Black Dysfunction: does it matter whether Culture or Genetics is to blame?

[syrenn]

Fucking racist *****. How do you complete shitbags keep posting the same lame threads week after week?

Really? And here I thought I was defending them. Good to know that saying its a crock of shit that they are genetically deficient is racist.

Pay close attention to:

"....keep posting the same lame threads week after week?"

That is a reference to the OP. That dumbass along with Joyce and crew have been posting the same op over and over and over.

Pay close attention:

Fucking racist ***** is a blanket statement for all women participating in this thread! Name them if you are singling them out!

 

[JBeukema]

You're a fucking sexist, syrenn.


Men can be fucking racist *****, too.

 

[syrenn]

Yes I do believe you are right, about the men that is.

 

[CurveLight]

Fucking racist *****. How do you complete shitbags keep posting the same lame threads week after week?

Really? And here I thought I was defending them. Good to know that saying its a crock of shit that they are genetically deficient is racist.

Really? And here I thought I was defending them. Good to know that saying its a crock of shit that they are genetically deficient is racist.

Pay close attention to:

"....keep posting the same lame threads week after week?"

That is a reference to the OP. That dumbass along with Joyce and crew have been posting the same op over and over and over.

Pay close attention:

Fucking racist ***** is a blanket statement for all women participating in this thread! Name them if you are singling them out!

Oh. I didn't know you needed the Speshial Idiot Approach. I was speaking specifically about the op author. Not you. Not women in general. My thread view is set to hide gender so I don't know who is what unless they specifically point it out. I use "****" in a derogatory manner to all genders because I'm not biased against women.

 

[geauxtohell]

..............
Reluctantly I do agree. However I do not believe, in any way, it has anything to do with the capacity of their brains to learn or genetics.

...............................

You ARE aware that the median negro IQ is 85 and hence bordering on mental retardation???????


BTW a White population sorted for a median IQ of 85 (the white median 101) would show the same pattern of economic failure and group social dysfunction as does negro America.

Speaking of retarded... Do you know the difference between a median and a mean? Obviously not, or else you'd realize how retarded your post is.

Here: 15, 25, 30, 24, 0, 5, 8, 11, 85, 50, 60, 15

For that random number sequence the mode is 15, the median is 19.5, and the mean is 27.3. You see? They aren't the same thing.

So let's correct your statement: the mean IQ is 85 (which is debatable) and work off of that:

Mental retardation is one standard deviation below the mean?

I don't think so. It starts at two STD below the mean at 70. If an IQ of 85 was "retarded" roughly 14% of the population would be retarded.

 

[IanC]

To put my statement in more concrete terms...I would bet $25,000 that a randomly chosen group of 1000 IQ100 individuals would outperform 1000 randomly chosen IQ85 individuals, at age 30, in every positive social trait. education, earnings, lack of criminal record, home ownership, prestige of employment, etc. and it wouldn't matter which race they belonged to.

Reluctantly I do agree. However I do not believe, in any way, it has anything to do with the capacity of their brains to learn or genetics.

I believe it has more to do with desire and ambition for education. It has to so with speaking English and not gettoneese. There is a lack of drive to better their lives.

so you think cognitive tests are measuring desire and ambition rather than intelligence? I don't think you have thought this subject through very well. one hundred years of investigation do not agree with your 'off the cuff' explanation.

 

[syrenn]

To put my statement in more concrete terms...I would bet $25,000 that a randomly chosen group of 1000 IQ100 individuals would outperform 1000 randomly chosen IQ85 individuals, at age 30, in every positive social trait. education, earnings, lack of criminal record, home ownership, prestige of employment, etc. and it wouldn't matter which race they belonged to.

Reluctantly I do agree. However I do not believe, in any way, it has anything to do with the capacity of their brains to learn or genetics.

I believe it has more to do with desire and ambition for education. It has to so with speaking English and not gettoneese. There is a lack of drive to better their lives.

so you think cognitive tests are measuring desire and ambition rather than intelligence? I don't think you have thought this subject through very well. one hundred years of investigation do not agree with your 'off the cuff' explanation.

Yes I have thought it though. What I am saying is that they do not apply themselves to education at all. Which in turn gives them lower scores. Brains need to be trained and exercised for them to work well.

Again there is no desire or ambition to better themselves.

 

[geauxtohell]

And this thread persists in its trend of people butchering statistics and snipping random facts to support their preconceived notions.

 

[IanC]

Your joking right? Are you just flat stating that back people are stupid as a whole?

there is a lot of individual variation in all races and there are individuals of all races at all points of the scale but blacks average one standard deviation lower than whites. IQ85 compared to IQ100. this is not news to you or anyone else. 'stupid' is a value judgement term. I only offer comparative descriptions. positive social traits are positively correlated to increasing IQ. because whites average higher scores, they also average higher social traits. is IQ/g/ intelligence the only factor? of course not. but it is easily measured and consistently correlated to successful traits.

And I.Q. is a stupid test to assess anything inside of two standard deviations. Guess what? 95% of the population falls within two standard deviations of the mean. 68% falls within one standard deviation. It doesn't become meaningful within the homogeneous group that makes up the vast majority.

All that aside, I.Q. tests are a silly and archaic measure of "intelligence".

If you are going to use an "average" IQ score to make any comment about the intelligence of any group as a whole, you have to assess what kind of bias (and I am talking about statistical bias here) is inherent.

A good breakdown:

Are IQ Tests Biased?

who told you that cognitive testing is meaningless for the area of +/- SD? if anything it is the extreme tails that are less meaningful. the Armed Forces have been using and studying intelligence testing for many decades. it is one of the main reasons that the majority of blacks are ineligible to sign up.

from your linked source above, a letter to the WSJ describing mainstream knowledge on intelligence from 50+ experts in the field...

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

 

[geauxtohell]

who told you that cognitive testing is meaningless for the area of +/- SD? if anything it is the extreme tails that are less meaningful. the Armed Forces have been using and studying intelligence testing for many decades. it is one of the main reasons that the majority of blacks are ineligible to sign up.

Stop the presses and note the bolded part.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[IanC]

Reluctantly I do agree. However I do not believe, in any way, it has anything to do with the capacity of their brains to learn or genetics.

I believe it has more to do with desire and ambition for education. It has to so with speaking English and not gettoneese. There is a lack of drive to better their lives.

so you think cognitive tests are measuring desire and ambition rather than intelligence? I don't think you have thought this subject through very well. one hundred years of investigation do not agree with your 'off the cuff' explanation.

Yes I have thought it though. What I am saying is that they do not apply themselves to education at all. Which in turn gives them lower scores. Brains need to be trained and exercised for them to work well.

Again there is no desire or ambition to better themselves.

OK, that is your opinion. I will reiterate the title of the thread. does it matter whether culture or genetics is the reason for black dysfunction? it is undoubtable a combination of both but the undeniable truth is that blacks underperform.

 

[IanC]

who told you that cognitive testing is meaningless for the area of +/- SD? if anything it is the extreme tails that are less meaningful. the Armed Forces have been using and studying intelligence testing for many decades. it is one of the main reasons that the majority of blacks are ineligible to sign up.

Stop the presses and note the bolded part.

WTF are you talking about?

are you arguing semantics? OK, it is the reason why the majority of all blacks would be refused entrance to the Armed Forces (the cutoff is roughly IQ90) if lack of high school diplomas or presence of criminal records didn't already preclude their acceptance.

 

[geauxtohell]

who told you that cognitive testing is meaningless for the area of +/- SD? if anything it is the extreme tails that are less meaningful. the Armed Forces have been using and studying intelligence testing for many decades. it is one of the main reasons that the majority of blacks are ineligible to sign up.

Stop the presses and note the bolded part.

WTF are you talking about?

are you arguing semantics? OK, it is the reason why the majority of all blacks would be refused entrance to the Armed Forces (the cutoff is roughly IQ90) if lack of high school diplomas or presence of criminal records didn't already preclude their acceptance.

The military has used the ASVAB since the mid-70s to assess intelligence.

What frigging decade are you living in? I think much is about to be explained.

Furthermore, even when the military did use the IQ test, the cut off was never 90.

Frankly, and this debate isn't unique to me, I think the IQ test is a relatively useless invention. It has some diagnostic utility for assessing degrees mental retardation. Other than that, only the mensa dorks care about it. Most people never take an IQ test and for those that do it's doubtful that it says much about anything but test taking ability.

Since an IQ test hasn't really been applied broadly and systematically, it's a silly thing to base an arguement off of. However, people have been doing so for years. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

On that note, you no doubt noticed that my link said that IQ scores for blacks when adjusted for socio-economic status was only about five points different than whites.

So I guess that answers your question in a way (if you adhere to the silly notion that IQ scores are a barometer of intelligence).

 

[IanC]

Furthermore, even when the military did use the IQ test, the cut off was never 90.

Rand actually puts the cutoff as IQ92

"What most people refer to as their ASVAB Test Scores is actually the ASVAB AFQT score which is typically represented in percentile form with the following minimum requirements for enlistment. Based on your score, you are put in a category. The military limits the number of people they take from the lower categories based on their enlistment needs.

Category I 93-100% Outstanding

Category II 65-92% Excellent

Category IIIA 50-64% Above Average

Category IIIB 31-49% Average

Category IVA 21-30% Below Average

Category IVB 16-20% Markedly Below Average

Category IVC 10-15% Poor

Category V 0-9% Not Trainable "

Raw scores are the number of points you get on each subtest
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG265/images/webG1471.pdf

 

[geauxtohell]

Furthermore, even when the military did use the IQ test, the cut off was never 90.

Rand actually puts the cutoff as IQ92

"What most people refer to as their ASVAB Test Scores is actually the ASVAB AFQT score which is typically represented in percentile form with the following minimum requirements for enlistment. Based on your score, you are put in a category. The military limits the number of people they take from the lower categories based on their enlistment needs.

Category I 93-100% Outstanding

Category II 65-92% Excellent

Category IIIA 50-64% Above Average

Category IIIB 31-49% Average

Category IVA 21-30% Below Average

Category IVB 16-20% Markedly Below Average

Category IVC 10-15% Poor

Category V 0-9% Not Trainable "

Raw scores are the number of points you get on each subtest
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG265/images/webG1471.pdf

It's a completely different test than the IQ test. I should know, I took them both.

I don't remember much about the ASVAB but I think I remember one question being along the difficulty level of a crank and pulley with a rope attached to a bucket and the question was if you turn the crank this way the bucket goes where?

It's a frigging joke.

I don't remember anything about the IQ test since I was 12 when I took it. Just that it had a bunch of puzzles on it.

 

[IanC]

On that note, you no doubt noticed that my link said that IQ scores for blacks when adjusted for socio-economic status was only about five points different than whites.

that is like saying that height makes no difference in the NBA when you only look at athletes that are 6'4" or taller. cognitive ability is one of the main factors determining SES. similar SES will necessarily restrict the range.

 

[geauxtohell]

On that note, you no doubt noticed that my link said that IQ scores for blacks when adjusted for socio-economic status was only about five points different than whites.

that is like saying that height makes no difference in the NBA when you only look at athletes that are 6'4" or taller. cognitive ability is one of the main factors determining SES. similar SES will necessarily restrict the range.

What? You do realize that an IQ test administered past the age of 18 is useless, correct?

So your tests group's SES was not determined by their IQ scores, it was determined by their parent's or any other of a number of factors they had little or no control over.

 

[IanC]

It's a completely different test than the IQ test. I should know, I took them both.

I don't remember much about the ASVAB but I think I remember one question being along the difficulty level of a crank and pulley with a rope attached to a bucket and the question was if you turn the crank this way the bucket goes where?

It's a frigging joke.

I don't remember anything about the IQ test since I was 12 when I took it. Just that it had a bunch of puzzles on it.

ahhh...now I understand your point a bit more clearly.

think of intelligence as heat. cognitive tests are like thermometers. they measure the heat. but the heat is still there whether it is measured or not. just like intelligence is there whether it is measured or not. you dislike the tests(thermometers) as imprecise +/or unreliable so you say intelligence(heat) doesn't exist.

 

[IanC]

What? You do realize that an IQ test administered past the age of 18 is useless, correct?

I am interested to find out why you think that. care to explain further?

 

[geauxtohell]

It's a completely different test than the IQ test. I should know, I took them both.

I don't remember much about the ASVAB but I think I remember one question being along the difficulty level of a crank and pulley with a rope attached to a bucket and the question was if you turn the crank this way the bucket goes where?

It's a frigging joke.

I don't remember anything about the IQ test since I was 12 when I took it. Just that it had a bunch of puzzles on it.

ahhh...now I understand your point a bit more clearly.

think of intelligence as heat. cognitive tests are like thermometers. they measure the heat. but the heat is still there whether it is measured or not. just like intelligence is there whether it is measured or not. you dislike the tests(thermometers) as imprecise +/or unreliable so you say intelligence(heat) doesn't exist.

You had me right up to the end.

I dislike the "thermometer" because I think "intelligence" is far too subjective to be measured by any simple test.

Do you not remember the IQ v. EQ debate from a few years ago?

Or more succinctly, why has less weight been put on the IQ test as the years progress?

It's because people realize it's not really a good tool to assess intellectual capacity over a person's entire lifetime (some people are late bloomers etc.) and basically can do much more harm than good. If a person is told at 12 that their IQ is below average then they believe that their whole life.

You and I both know that's not the case.

I have so many friends who were terrible students in high school who are now successful lawyers or even brain surgeons.

On the other hand, I know of so many childhood prodigies that are now burn outs.

"The race is long and in the end does not go to the swift or the fleet of foot but simply to those who keep running."