Institutionalized racism... or are blacks just less employable?

[taichiliberal]

Again, you haven't explained your absurd statement. Instead, you give a lot of clap trap opinion of how YOU perceive black people should act. My responses desconstruct your nonsense as so much blathering to try and justify/disguise your general dislike for black people. Fine, no one asked you to like us.....but no one is going to sit back and let your bigoted BS go unchallenged either.

For a re-cap of what came before, see post number 71.

If only you'd take your own advice, we'd be spared with a regurgitation of your bigoted BS dodges.

You seem to be reading, but not understanding. I'll try to be less wordy.

Quit stalling, quit projecting and just answer the question.

I am wondering why the Black vote is about 90% Democrat since the Dems haven't solved the problem of the Black economic inequality in the 80 or so years of this devotion of the Black Vote to the Dems.

You shold have followed your own advice....I already answered this in Post #71....and you STILL haven't answered the original question.

Tha American Black culture is unique in the world to the USA. In no place in the post did I say, nor do I believe that the members of the Black population are in any way not deserving of equality economically, socially or politically. It is you, in a very venomous and hatefully racially inspired response who is displaying racism.

Now you're lying, because no where have I stated or alluded to what you accuse me of here. YOU stated that the Democratic Party alone has in just 80 years ... "has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating". Now I don't know what planet you're own or what you're smoking, but when you categorize an entire group of people with negatives like you do here, and YOU point out that it's a "race" of people, then it is YOU who are displaying a racial denigration as a norm to be accepted as fact. To date, you haven't given anything other than long winded convoluted logic based on your supposition and conjecture and opinion. I took those apart in Post #71, seems that all you can do is just parrot the same BS and try to pretend it's a new aspect. Your ploy is not working bunky, and any high school debate squad member can tell you that.

I happen to like people. This includes Black people. I find all people interesting, funny, intelligent, stupid, curious, talented, dull or abrasive based on how they act when i'm around them. This includes Black people.

You're wasting time and space...and you're not fooling anyone. Bigots often malign people and then say, "why, some my best friends are <fill in the blank>. Your previous words expose you for what you are, whether you acknowledge that or not.

Obviously, as a group, Blacks are underachieving. Blacks have said this.

Correction.....the discussion encompassed a high drop out rate...NOT an overall "underachieving" as you allude to here. Black advocates are very specific about what they are complaining about and why. Bigots, racists and white supremacists with delusions of intellectualism make generalized accusations based on carefully chosen excerpts of information while ignoring all other factors....as you do here.

Obviously, as a group, Blacks vote for Democrats. Blacks have said this.

No shit sherlock, and they've patently done so since Nixon's "Southern Strategy"! Do some honest homework to see what that was about, because quite frankly I'm tired of doing homework for willfully ignorant folk like yourself.

Obviously, the programs of the Democrats that the Blacks vote for as a group are not correcting the problem.

Ahhh, but you obviously ignore what progress has been made....progress that the GOP has been steadfastly against. See, you keep speaking in generalities, but you give NO SPECIFICS. By your "logic", there has been NO gains in civil rights for black folk since the GOP fell out of favor with them. History tells a different story, however.

Obviously, as a group, Blacks continue to underachieve and continue to vote for the programs of the Democrats that do not correct and seem to intentionally not address the underachieving.

Why don't you specify what "programs" you consider have failed Black folk?

My question is, "Why do the Blacks, as a group, continue to vote for the Democrats, usually in the range of 90%, who promote programs that don't seem to help?"

Your "question" is bogus, as YOU HAVE NOT AND CAN NOT FACTUALLY AND L0GICALLY PROVE YOUR ASSERTION THAT the Democratic Party alone has in just 80 years ... "has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating". Until you can logically and factually prove the basis for your contentions, any further "questions" from you are irrelevent.

Before you re-present your lie, I did not say that the Democrats are responsible for the plight of the Blacks. I am wondering why the Blacks show such allegiance in spite of the lack of results provided by the Democrats.

Your a liar, plain and simple. Here's your direct quote, " . What i find confusing is that the Black Vote is solidly Democrat in spite of the FACT that 80 years of absolute devotion to the Democrats has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating."

No matter how you try to spin it, you point to Democratic policies that have resulted in your absurd postulation. I already took apart your nonsense about "assimilation", of which you try to ignore. Your other characterizations are delusional, given the black representation in medical, legal, military, political, educational, science professions alone in this country.

Please try to wash away your racism and respond to what I have written, not what you have echoing around in your head.

Please spare us all your bullshit and just answer the question......how on earth did you determine that black people are not "assimilated" in a country where they've been for a few centuries? How do we have no "individualistic initiative" or pride in "not achieving" when not only did we survive generations of slavery and Jim Crow perpetraited by folks with your mindset, but come to be represented in significant numbers in the profession I previously mentioned?

So put up or shut up, bunky....and spare us all another parroting of your previous smokescreen. I know I shouldn't humiliate ignorant people in public...but when you white supremacist try to be "intelligent" about your bigotry, it's just a guilty pleasure that I'm sure God will forgive me for indulging.

 

[taichiliberal]

I don't know exactly what you are trying to say here. The various fiill-in-the-blanks Americans that you mention are not that easy to identify after a generation or two. Scottish-Americans, as an example, have not developed an American Scottich indentity that connects one to the other and extends to dress, language, attitude, handshakes, music, dance and so on. The UN Blacks that you mention would never be mistaken for American Blacks.

Oh you understand, you just don't like being schooled on how absurd your bigoted blathering comes across. Remember genius, YOU were the one who made the assertion that black folk are a race that take pride in "not assimilating". Now, other than we're not "white", what the hell are YOU going on about? You seem to want to ignore the FACT that folks who ethnically define themselves by accents, dress, hair cuts, facial features are all over the USA....or maybe all those people that have participating in various ethnic parades are from an alternate universe? (the St. Patrick's Day parade comes to mind, and people of Nordic descent in Minnesota make no bones about dressing and talking and acting a certain way). Last time I checked, all white people are not acting like a bunch of Borg drones.....and bigotry between Wasps, Irish, Italians, Jews, Polish, Russians, Greeks, etc. can be easily documented.

As Post 71 shows, YOU keep making assinine assertions and statements, and when I take them apart, you try to pretend not only that you didn't state such, but that somehow I initiated that issue. But as the chronology of the posts shows, you're just lying.

The American Black Culture is unique in the world. It is a culture within a culture.

No shit sherlock.....what's that got to do with you being unable to prove your absurd statements and all it's implications?

I happen to like it. Why you think that I don't is beyond me. It does separate Blacks from the mainstream of society, however, and THAT is what I said. Just becuase you hate does not mean that I hate.

If something is, it is.

Oh spare me your "why, some of my best friends are blacks" bullshit. You're previous statements and your dishonest attempts to defend such contradict your faux admiration.

Other groups have assimilated. Is assimilation good or bad? I have no opinion on that. Will assimilation into any group promote becoming a part of that group? Certainly. However, it will also result in losing that which makes the assimilated group unique.

I already addressed this bullshit of yours in Post 71. Seems you ignore what you don't like. Let me dumb it down for you.....black Americans are just that, Black AMERICANS. That means we function on the same social mores, reference points and laws that you do....and have been doing it a century BEFORE the country existed as the USA. You don't like the cultural variations, TFB. If all the other "ethnic" groups give up their cultural differences to suit one person's or groups idea of the "norm" then you wouldn't have the America that's existed for over 230 years. So spare me your bullshit.

My point is this: If any group strives to be separated from any other group, it cannot resonably expect to become a part of that group in completeness.

Blacks seem to strive to be separated from the mainstream of society by asserting their uniqueness. That's great! As I said, this culture is a colorful thread in the fabric of the country. Do you assert that there is no difference in the, for lack of a better set of terms, the "Black Culture" and the "White Culture" within the USA? If you do, one of my favorite entertainers, Chris Rock, might differ with you. American humor has roots that go deeply into the American Black Culture. Humor is a great way to bridge differences and to expose me to myself as Rock has done for me many times.

What is your problem? Why is it that every other ethnic and racial group can retain it's ethnic identity in America, but black people can't? Got news for you bunky, a few centuries of slavery and a century of Jim Crow FORCED SOCIETAL SEPARATIONS on black people...and STILL black folk survived and succeeded and became integral part of the American society. If what you say were true, then we wouldn't have the representations we have in the military, or the medical profession, or law enforcement, or politics or the legal profession, or job unions, industry, etc., yet retain ethnic/racial differences that identify us. In short, you're just parroting white supremacist BS that doesn't stand up to the light of day.

I don't know if you are Black or not. I assume that you are. Anger is also a part of the American Black Culture. The first time I went to Jamaica, I was surprised that black people in Jamaica "looked" different to me than Black People in America. When I got back to Miami, it hit me. The Blacks in Miami looked Pissed Off. Jamaicans just look happy. That was in about 1980, give or take.

And that's another one of your personal opinions that's irrelevent. YOU made a statement that YOU cannot prove beyond your convoluted logic based on opinion, supposition and conjecture. See above responses.

Anyway, back to the point: Does either political party in this country court the Scottish-American vote or the French vote, the German vote? They do court the Jewish vote because that is, again, a culture within a culture. I really don't understand this allegiance, either. It is what it is.

Seems your ignoring one little tidbit....YOU ARE COMPARING ETHNIC DIFFERENCES TO RACIAL DIFFERENCES. Big difference when it comes to the history of America. Like I told another little bigot earlier, when you can show me the historical record of Scottish Americans, French and Germans being brought to this country chained in the bowels of slave ships...sold and bred like cattle for a century or two, and then having to deal with Jim Crow laws for a century and several law changes before being treated like human beings and citizens, then you might have a case. Untill then, you're just blowing smoke.

And, again, the "fantastic statement" that you refer to is not something that I said, it is something that you made up.

Again, you're a liar....and here's the quote for all to see: What i find confusing is that the Black Vote is solidly Democrat in spite of the FACT that 80 years of absolute devotion to the Democrats has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating.

 

[Trajan]

Again, you're a liar....and here's the quote for all to see: What i find confusing is that the Black Vote is solidly Democrat in spite of the FACT that 80 years of absolute devotion to the Democrats has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating.

one thing at a time;

African Americans most especially in the inner city display an aversion to academic excellence?

would you say that that is true, false, misunderstood or ?

 

[IanC]

Taichiliberal, Thank you for your interest in this topic. I do recall after it was published that some critics of the book, such as the ones you cited, voiced their opinion against it, but its hardly fair to say the book was 'discredited". Regardless, You dont need to read the bell curve to verify its contention that blacks are less intelligent than whites, because a hundred years of IQ testing incontrovertibly supports this fact. Just listen to the American Psychological Association, the world's premier organization of psychologists comprised of 152000 scientists and educators. "A report issued by the APA in 1996 concluded that the racial IQ gap between African American and White Americans has remained relatively stable since IQ testing began, and concluded that the gap is not the result of "any obvious biases in the construction or administration of tests, nor does it simply reflect differences in socioeconomic status"." (American Psychologist 51: 77&#8211;101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77) As the Bell Curve asserted, these difference are at least in part, if not largely, due to genetic factors, considering that differences in intelligence among people is largely the result of genetic inheritance. The best proof of this is a review of 111 scientific studies of monozygotic twins which reveal that the higher the percentage of genes individuals have in common, then the more similar their iq, regardless of the environment they are raised in. That is, monozygotic twins have very similar iqs even when raised in very different environments, wheres mere cousins are not that much more likely than two random individuals to possess a similar iq level. American Psychologist 51(2): 77&#8211;101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77. The facts about black iq speak for themselves.

Sorry to inform you, but the whole concept of using IQ tests to determine racial inferiority was laid to rest awhile back. Go to this google page and click on the link to the University of Rhode Island paper on Race, Class, IQ and Economic Success

Shockley twins race discredited - Google Search

For you to invoke the nonsense that was once played by Shockley is pathetic. He was discredited, and the APA's declaration was discredited previously by Noam Chomsky, the man who wrote the book on how we communicate.

Chomsky on IQ and inequality at newlearningonline.com

Do you even read these links you post up? Or do you just google and hope for the best? Why don't you express your opinion in your own words, and if necessary, post a quote or a link to support your position.

I believe you are living up to your nickname by thinking that creating strawmen and ad homenum attacks are the equivilent to logical argument as can be seen by your link to a google search page containing 'Shockley' and 'discredited'. You were too lazy to even pick one out. What does Shockley have to do with the pervasive racial gap that is present in mental testing and most other social traits?

 

[IanC]

taichiliberal- after re-reading the Chomsky article, there are quite a few interesting points that are worth discussing. But first I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it refutes the APA statement.

 

[code1211]

<snip>

Before you re-present your lie, I did not say that the Democrats are responsible for the plight of the Blacks. I am wondering why the Blacks show such allegiance in spite of the lack of results provided by the Democrats.

Your a liar, plain and simple. Here's your direct quote, " . What i find confusing is that the Black Vote is solidly Democrat in spite of the FACT that 80 years of absolute devotion to the Democrats has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating."

No matter how you try to spin it, you point to Democratic policies that have resulted in your absurd postulation. I already took apart your nonsense about "assimilation", of which you try to ignore. Your other characterizations are delusional, given the black representation in medical, legal, military, political, educational, science professions alone in this country.

Please try to wash away your racism and respond to what I have written, not what you have echoing around in your head.

Please spare us all your bullshit and just answer the question......how on earth did you determine that black people are not "assimilated" in a country where they've been for a few centuries? How do we have no "individualistic initiative" or pride in "not achieving" when not only did we survive generations of slavery and Jim Crow perpetraited by folks with your mindset, but come to be represented in significant numbers in the profession I previously mentioned?

So put up or shut up, bunky....and spare us all another parroting of your previous smokescreen. I know I shouldn't humiliate ignorant people in public...but when you white supremacist try to be "intelligent" about your bigotry, it's just a guilty pleasure that I'm sure God will forgive me for indulging.

Thank you for finally including the part of the quote that you edited out. I have highlighted it in Blue above. I was wondering about why the Black population supports the Democrat Party in such strong majorities in spite of the many years of devotion and the long list of things left to accomplish.

Apparently, I was wrong. Apparently, there is no long list of things left to accomplish. The passion of your response and the name calling reveal that the result of the loyalty of the Black population to the Democrat Party has produced for them a Utopian environment including respect from all parts of society, great economic success, complete assimilation into the society's mainstream and has completely eliminated the need for any additional work to correct the wrongs of the past.

You have opened my eyes and I now accept that the Black population voting for the Democrat Party as a block has produced the results they wanted and that the Democrat party has acted with both integrity and energy to justify that support.

I am glad to know that the Civil Rights Struggle is over. Thank you.

 

[editec]

Are Whites raised in the poverty culture also less employable?

Yes.

Is that because they're Black, too?

Let us assume for purposes of advancing this discussion that the Bell Curve has much to do with employability.

Do we find a strong correlation between IQ and being employed?

Perhaps we find some correlation but one wonders if that correlation is higher than the correlation between, say, family incomes and employability?

I posit that the corrlation between family income and individual outcomes is much stronger than the correlation between IQ and individual outcomes.

In fact, where you start out in the socio-economic range is the highest indicator of where you'll end up the socio-economic range.

Obviously intelligence, education and hard work play a role is our lives, but the statistics overall indicate that they are not the only factors leading to outcome.

The fact is, despite all the bullshit we read about opportunity and the American dream, this society has the lowest upward social mobility in the industrialized world.

I submit to you that statistic indicates that institutional CLASSISM effects everyone of us (for good or bad) regardless of our race.

FYI

Understanding Mobility in America

The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:​

Ø

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top

5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22

percent chance.
Ø ​

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300)

had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5

percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of
attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
Ø ​

Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which

economic status is transmitted from parent to child.

Ø ​

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as

likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical

incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
Ø ​

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

Ø ​

After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied

by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.

Ø ​

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of

intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes

as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France,
Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income
countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom
had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
i
Understanding Mobility in America

Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements include the following:
Ø ​

The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91

and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.

Ø ​

Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who

experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their

incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-
91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
Ø ​

The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile

saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile
($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.​

Ø ​

For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the

frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an

increase in financial distress.
Ø ​

The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP ​

grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.

Ø ​

Upward short-term mobility for those in the bottom quintile has improved since

1990-91, with no significant offsetting increase in downward short-term mobility.

Ø ​

Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two

years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households

who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people
who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.​

Interesting isnt it?

 

[code1211]

Taichiliberal, Thank you for your interest in this topic. I do recall after it was published that some critics of the book, such as the ones you cited, voiced their opinion against it, but its hardly fair to say the book was 'discredited". Regardless, You dont need to read the bell curve to verify its contention that blacks are less intelligent than whites, because a hundred years of IQ testing incontrovertibly supports this fact. Just listen to the American Psychological Association, the world's premier organization of psychologists comprised of 152000 scientists and educators. "A report issued by the APA in 1996 concluded that the racial IQ gap between African American and White Americans has remained relatively stable since IQ testing began, and concluded that the gap is not the result of "any obvious biases in the construction or administration of tests, nor does it simply reflect differences in socioeconomic status"." (American Psychologist 51: 77&#8211;101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77) As the Bell Curve asserted, these difference are at least in part, if not largely, due to genetic factors, considering that differences in intelligence among people is largely the result of genetic inheritance. The best proof of this is a review of 111 scientific studies of monozygotic twins which reveal that the higher the percentage of genes individuals have in common, then the more similar their iq, regardless of the environment they are raised in. That is, monozygotic twins have very similar iqs even when raised in very different environments, wheres mere cousins are not that much more likely than two random individuals to possess a similar iq level. American Psychologist 51(2): 77&#8211;101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77. The facts about black iq speak for themselves.

Sorry to inform you, but the whole concept of using IQ tests to determine racial inferiority was laid to rest awhile back. Go to this google page and click on the link to the University of Rhode Island paper on Race, Class, IQ and Economic Success

Shockley twins race discredited - Google Search

For you to invoke the nonsense that was once played by Shockley is pathetic. He was discredited, and the APA's declaration was discredited previously by Noam Chomsky, the man who wrote the book on how we communicate.

Chomsky on IQ and inequality at newlearningonline.com

Do you even read these links you post up? Or do you just google and hope for the best? Why don't you express your opinion in your own words, and if necessary, post a quote or a link to support your position.

I believe you are living up to your nickname by thinking that creating strawmen and ad homenum attacks are the equivilent to logical argument as can be seen by your link to a google search page containing 'Shockley' and 'discredited'. You were too lazy to even pick one out. What does Shockley have to do with the pervasive racial gap that is present in mental testing and most other social traits?

I read the Chomsky article. I, too, was a tad confused by the search page being linked.

Shockley does make the point that when listing the standing of any individual after testing, referencing the individual's race and making him a representative of that race, will act only as a justification of racism within a racist society. This, of course, assumes that the listed results will show that representative's positionaing to be consistant with the societal biases in the listing.

In our racist society, however, using those test scores as a measure of the results of the efforts and treasure expended to measure effectiveness of programs is just a good management tool. Really no different than using the W/L record of a sports team to determine if the programs in use are effective or not.

Many sports managers have taken a team that has a history of losing and used the same individuals to produce a winner. Shula and Lombardi are good examples.

In any effort, if the procedures are working, continue them. If they're not, find the Critical Success Indicators, adjust the procedures and try again. Continuing the same action and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Charles Barkley said that the subject of Race in America is a taboo subject and that it shouldn't be. Taichilib is a good example of why it is.

 

[Flaylo]

they treat them like children and attack them if they dare support another party.

I never ceases to amaze me that the Minorities continue to flock to a Party that so openly uses them.

It fucking amazes me how Republicans want African Americans to flock to a political who's against affirmative action, supports bills and laws that disprortionately puts minorities and the poor at a disadvantage, a party thats against labor unions and a party thats against spending money on social programs to help the poor while at the same fucking time supporting any and all legislation that favors the rich like tax cuts for the richest of the rich that don't do shit to help the economy.

fact- African Americans have been voting as a 85%+ monolithic block for democrats since civil rights.....hows that working out?

We've made significant gains since the Civil Rights movement as Democrats, what have Republicans done for blacks since the Civil Rights movement except bitch, complain and moan about how Democrats misleading blacks? I almost forgot, they've been telling blacks that almost every gain they've made is wrong because some poor white guy had to be disadvantaged and strongly advocate for us to join their party to make things better for the whites they(blacks) have disadvantaged by voting against affirmative action.

 

[taichiliberal]

Again, you're a liar....and here's the quote for all to see: What i find confusing is that the Black Vote is solidly Democrat in spite of the FACT that 80 years of absolute devotion to the Democrats has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating.

one thing at a time;

African Americans most especially in the inner city display an aversion to academic excellence?

would you say that that is true, false, misunderstood or ?

I would say that poor black folk in "inner cities" across the USA display no more or less an "aversion" to "academic excellence" than any other race/ethnicity in this country.....or did you think broadway plays and movies about the "jets & sharks" or the Bowery Boys/Dead End Kids were based in Lithuania? Ever hear of the Mafia? Russian Mob? Westies? The DIFFERENCE is that poor folk who are NOT identified by racial minority can move up on the economic/social/educational scale within a generation or so, and lessen the numbers for their group in dire straits. Also, the Dead End Kids, Jets, wise guys didn't have the stigma of several centuries of slavery and Jim Crow to exaccerbate their situation.

 

[taichiliberal]

Taichiliberal, Thank you for your interest in this topic. I do recall after it was published that some critics of the book, such as the ones you cited, voiced their opinion against it, but its hardly fair to say the book was 'discredited". Regardless, You dont need to read the bell curve to verify its contention that blacks are less intelligent than whites, because a hundred years of IQ testing incontrovertibly supports this fact. Just listen to the American Psychological Association, the world's premier organization of psychologists comprised of 152000 scientists and educators. "A report issued by the APA in 1996 concluded that the racial IQ gap between African American and White Americans has remained relatively stable since IQ testing began, and concluded that the gap is not the result of "any obvious biases in the construction or administration of tests, nor does it simply reflect differences in socioeconomic status"." (American Psychologist 51: 77&#8211;101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77) As the Bell Curve asserted, these difference are at least in part, if not largely, due to genetic factors, considering that differences in intelligence among people is largely the result of genetic inheritance. The best proof of this is a review of 111 scientific studies of monozygotic twins which reveal that the higher the percentage of genes individuals have in common, then the more similar their iq, regardless of the environment they are raised in. That is, monozygotic twins have very similar iqs even when raised in very different environments, wheres mere cousins are not that much more likely than two random individuals to possess a similar iq level. American Psychologist 51(2): 77&#8211;101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77. The facts about black iq speak for themselves.

Sorry to inform you, but the whole concept of using IQ tests to determine racial inferiority was laid to rest awhile back. Go to this google page and click on the link to the University of Rhode Island paper on Race, Class, IQ and Economic Success

Shockley twins race discredited - Google Search

For you to invoke the nonsense that was once played by Shockley is pathetic. He was discredited, and the APA's declaration was discredited previously by Noam Chomsky, the man who wrote the book on how we communicate.

Chomsky on IQ and inequality at newlearningonline.com

Do you even read these links you post up? Or do you just google and hope for the best? Why don't you express your opinion in your own words, and if necessary, post a quote or a link to support your position.

I believe you are living up to your nickname by thinking that creating strawmen and ad homenum attacks are the equivilent to logical argument as can be seen by your link to a google search page containing 'Shockley' and 'discredited'. You were too lazy to even pick one out. What does Shockley have to do with the pervasive racial gap that is present in mental testing and most other social traits?

And there you have it folks, our resident would be white supremacist "intellectual" cannot logically or factually refute or disprove what I sourced in any detail, so instead he launches a lame personal attack chock full of suppostition and conjecture with baseless accusations and allegations.

Ian C postures as if he's read on the subject of discussion, yet he missed the point that Shockley had laid the ground work for what those two idiots regurgitated in the "The Bell Curve" that Flag waiver was so proud to point to.

Someone needs to clue these two bigoted bumpkins in.....when a previous work is disproven by work that preceeded it (Chomsky to Shockley) then a later version is just as wrong. That seems to be Ian C's problem (among many)...he just skims through things without using the cognitive reasoning skills God gave him...and his white supremacist leanings cloud his critical thinking abilities....which is so much more to pity him.

 

[Trajan]

I would say that poor black folk in "inner cities" across the USA display no more or less an "aversion" to "academic excellence" than any other race/ethnicity in this country.....

be that as it may that seems to be the thinking of many black scholars.......and what difference does it make, we aren't discussing them. In the end its destructive no matter the skew.

or did you think broadway plays and movies about the "jets & sharks" or the Bowery Boys/Dead End Kids were based in Lithuania? Ever hear of the Mafia? Russian Mob? Westies?

frankly, I don't remember that being the case in my experience, in fact the few mini vinie goombahs took their lunch money and messed around with them but respected kids who displayed smarts and were far less aggressively anti education than the point being made/discussed.

The DIFFERENCE is that poor folk who are NOT identified by racial minority can move up on the economic/social/educational scale within a generation or so, and lessen the numbers for their group in dire straits.

so is this a ward connerly shout out? Or ?

Also, the Dead End Kids, Jets, wise guys didn't have the stigma of several centuries of slavery and Jim Crow to exaccerbate their situation.

that stigma 'exacerbateing' the situation is less and less and less every decade...so how many decades do you think will have to go by before that is no longer viable?

 

[taichiliberal]

taichiliberal- after re-reading the Chomsky article, there are quite a few interesting points that are worth discussing. But first I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it refutes the APA statement.

This excerpt encapsulates my point:


[Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

 

[code1211]

taichiliberal- after re-reading the Chomsky article, there are quite a few interesting points that are worth discussing. But first I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it refutes the APA statement.

This excerpt encapsulates my point:


[Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

There is always the consideration of measuring results to determine if previous actions have made any impact.

If you were to examine the efforts of the many who have addressed racial inequality, what would you measure to determine success or failure of the efforts?

 

[taichiliberal]

<snip>

Before you re-present your lie, I did not say that the Democrats are responsible for the plight of the Blacks. I am wondering why the Blacks show such allegiance in spite of the lack of results provided by the Democrats.

Your a liar, plain and simple. Here's your direct quote, " . What i find confusing is that the Black Vote is solidly Democrat in spite of the FACT that 80 years of absolute devotion to the Democrats has produced a race devoid of individualistic initiative, a race that takes pride in not achieving and not assimilating."

No matter how you try to spin it, you point to Democratic policies that have resulted in your absurd postulation. I already took apart your nonsense about "assimilation", of which you try to ignore. Your other characterizations are delusional, given the black representation in medical, legal, military, political, educational, science professions alone in this country.

Please try to wash away your racism and respond to what I have written, not what you have echoing around in your head.

Please spare us all your bullshit and just answer the question......how on earth did you determine that black people are not "assimilated" in a country where they've been for a few centuries? How do we have no "individualistic initiative" or pride in "not achieving" when not only did we survive generations of slavery and Jim Crow perpetraited by folks with your mindset, but come to be represented in significant numbers in the profession I previously mentioned?

So put up or shut up, bunky....and spare us all another parroting of your previous smokescreen. I know I shouldn't humiliate ignorant people in public...but when you white supremacist try to be "intelligent" about your bigotry, it's just a guilty pleasure that I'm sure God will forgive me for indulging.

Thank you for finally including the part of the quote that you edited out. I have highlighted it in Blue above. I was wondering about why the Black population supports the Democrat Party in such strong majorities in spite of the many years of devotion and the long list of things left to accomplish.

Will you stop acting silly? In all the responses were I captioned your quote I included reference to the lines in blue that didn't change the meaning of your pondering in way, shape or form. So when I get the exact quote, the best you can do is just parrot the SOS that I've discussed, deconstructed, dismantled, disproved and derrided in several previous posts. Seems you're just blowing smoke as usual, but the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing.

Apparently, I was wrong. Apparently, there is no long list of things left to accomplish. The passion of your response and the name calling reveal that the result of the loyalty of the Black population to the Democrat Party has produced for them a Utopian environment including respect from all parts of society, great economic success, complete assimilation into the society's mainstream and has completely eliminated the need for any additional work to correct the wrongs of the past.

Apparently, as the chronology of the posts shows, you're full of it....plain and simple. You make these statements, and when I take them apart to the point where you have no logical retort, you just babble the already disproven points like a parrot on speed. You're attempt to condescend would have some weight if the posts didn't already show your inability to respond in a logical and honest fashion.

You have opened my eyes and I now accept that the Black population voting for the Democrat Party as a block has produced the results they wanted and that the Democrat party has acted with both integrity and energy to justify that support.

I am glad to know that the Civil Rights Struggle is over. Thank you.

And there you have it folks.......another intellectually bankrupt sheet wearer professing his delusions....pity the chronology of the posts makes out this CODE to be a liar every time. I leave him to his folly and the last predictable set of lies.

 

[taichiliberal]

taichiliberal- after re-reading the Chomsky article, there are quite a few interesting points that are worth discussing. But first I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it refutes the APA statement.

This excerpt encapsulates my point:


[Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) &#8230; As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category &#8230; In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the &#8216;justification&#8217; provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

There is always the consideration of measuring results to determine if previous actions have made any impact.

Sorry to inform you that your generalized statement here does not apply to the specifics that Chomsky has laid out. What you do is typical of propagandist...you take a sentence out of context and try to treat it as a sole focus/point of the presentation you are trying to discredit. You fail here, because one can easily read what criteria Chomsky is "recognizing" in order to substantiate his assertion.

If you were to examine the efforts of the many who have addressed racial inequality, what would you measure to determine success or failure of the efforts?

Pay attention:
As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category &#8230; In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is.

Obviously, you either cannot or intentionally do not want to comprehend what this ENTIRE PARAGRAPH is stating. Instead, you insist upon regurgitating the exact same premise that Chomsky logically dismisses. Not surprising, as the propaganda of white supremacists often depends upon the repetiton of one particular set of facts or statements while excluding all other facts, statements and information....especially that which contradicts the white supremacists/bigots beliefs.

Carry on.

 

[rikules]

Neither. We just don't encourage educational value in certain demographics. For this, I tend to blame the Democrats. They have made 'minorities' a 'pet project' and have failed them badly. They do it for the votes, they don't actually help minorities in any meaningful way. Instead of pushing programs that encourage education and positive outcomes, they encourage 'entitlement' programs.

a bit harsh....

"We just don't encourage educational value in certain demographics."

I have no idea how true this is.
and I hope you'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

my opinion (which definitely lacks experience on the subject) is that large segments of blacks live in terrible neighborhoods;

single mothers with TOO MANY kids that they don't raise properly
these children growing up in gang infested neighborhoods where they quickly learn to disrespect education,police,parents, adults
going to schools where teachers quickly learn that they can't win....

all pretty much hopeless....

" For this, I tend to blame the Democrats. They have made 'minorities' a 'pet project' and have failed them badly"

well...
I can't argue much with this.
I believe liberal democrats HAVE made a "pet project " of blacks (and not minorities so much) but, as we all know, democrats tend to be a bit inept...

the best of intentions, perhaps, but poor execution and improper planning

"They do it for the votes, they don't actually help minorities in any meaningful way."

You are certainly entitled to this opinion.
It is my impression that MOST liberals and democrats really DO want to help blacks but they just aren't very good at it.

"Instead of pushing programs that encourage education and positive outcomes, they encourage 'entitlement' programs."


again
I think there is some truth in this....

I still maintain that liberals/democrats mean well....

 

[taichiliberal]

I would say that poor black folk in "inner cities" across the USA display no more or less an "aversion" to "academic excellence" than any other race/ethnicity in this country.....

be that as it may that seems to be the thinking of many black scholars.......and what difference does it make, we aren't discussing them. In the end its destructive no matter the skew.

You ask a question, I gave you an answer, and you don't say the answer is wrong, you say "it doesn't matter".
So please tell me, what answer can I give that "does matter" that you approve of? Seems you readily equate my answer with Black scholars (flattering, but not accurate....anyone who is honest and READS can give the same answer), yet you dismiss them in order to put forth an assertion. So in effective, you weren't interested in my answer, you just needed an excuse to blurt our your preconceived notions.

or did you think broadway plays and movies about the "jets & sharks" or the Bowery Boys/Dead End Kids were based in Lithuania? Ever hear of the Mafia? Russian Mob? Westies?

frankly, I don't remember that being the case in my experience, in fact the few mini vinie goombahs took their lunch money and messed around with them but respected kids who displayed smarts and were far less aggressively anti education than the point being made/discussed.

Pay attention: I wasn't talking about your personal experiences...I was referring to how our society has historically ACKNOWLEDGED groups of folk who fit the bill YOU assigned solely to black folk. And what I find hysterical is your knee jerk defense of non-black thuggish activity while assigning merit and insinuating no such thing exists for black people on the same level. Clearly, your sheet is showing beneath your suit of rationality.

The DIFFERENCE is that poor folk who are NOT identified by racial minority can move up on the economic/social/educational scale within a generation or so, and lessen the numbers for their group in dire straits.

so is this a ward connerly shout out? Or ?

No genius, it's a statement of DOCUMENTED FACT born of generations of immigrants who changed their names in order to "assimilate" and become upwardly mobile in a society run by Anglo-Saxons descended from the British Empire. Obviously, you slept through the classes on the Great Immigration in American history.

Also, the Dead End Kids, Jets, wise guys didn't have the stigma of several centuries of slavery and Jim Crow to exaccerbate their situation.

that stigma 'exacerbateing' the situation is less and less and less every decade...so how many decades do you think will have to go by before that is no longer viable?

You tell me....folk like you are STILL trying to deny the effects and results of a few centuries of slavery and a century of Jim Crow. Were 47 years out of that nonsense....and we STILL have jokers trying to rewrite/deny history, fighting the Civil War for the Confederacy, denying housing and jobs when they can, etc. But do keep it coming, my pointed hooded Trajan....making fools of bigots with delusions of intelligence is a guilty pleasure of mine.

 

[The Infidel]

I love it when people try to blame liberals for this kind of stuff. You guys assume we are all stupid enough to believe you.

You ASSume that I/we are ASSuming.

Me.... I KNOW you guys are crazy.

 

[taichiliberal]

Are Whites raised in the poverty culture also less employable?

Yes.

Is that because they're Black, too?

Let us assume for purposes of advancing this discussion that the Bell Curve has much to do with employability.

Do we find a strong correlation between IQ and being employed?

Perhaps we find some correlation but one wonders if that correlation is higher than the correlation between, say, family incomes and employability?

I posit that the corrlation between family income and individual outcomes is much stronger than the correlation between IQ and individual outcomes.

In fact, where you start out in the socio-economic range is the highest indicator of where you'll end up the socio-economic range.

Obviously intelligence, education and hard work play a role is our lives, but the statistics overall indicate that they are not the only factors leading to outcome.

The fact is, despite all the bullshit we read about opportunity and the American dream, this society has the lowest upward social mobility in the industrialized world.

I submit to you that statistic indicates that institutional CLASSISM effects everyone of us (for good or bad) regardless of our race.

FYI

Understanding Mobility in America

The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:​

Ø

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top

5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22

percent chance.
Ø ​

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300)

had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5

percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of
attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
Ø ​

Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which

economic status is transmitted from parent to child.

Ø ​

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as

likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical

incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
Ø ​

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

Ø ​

After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied

by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.

Ø ​

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of

intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes

as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France,
Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income
countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom
had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
i
Understanding Mobility in America

Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements include the following:
Ø ​

The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91

and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.

Ø ​

Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who

experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their

incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-
91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
Ø ​

The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile

saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile
($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.​

Ø ​

For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the

frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an

increase in financial distress.
Ø ​

The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP ​

grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.

Ø ​

Upward short-term mobility for those in the bottom quintile has improved since

1990-91, with no significant offsetting increase in downward short-term mobility.

Ø ​

Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two

years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households

who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people
who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.​

Interesting isnt it?

Yes, especially this from the source you provided:


Conclusions

We began with the observation that the United States. has one of the lowest rates of intergenerational mobility among high-income nations, such that the chances of ending up rich if you were born to a low-income family are on the order of just one percent. We noted, however, that this does not necessarily prove that economic opportunities are unequally distributed – it depends on the mechanisms by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child. When we explored these mechanisms we found that education loomed largest, meaning that increasing the access of low and
middle-income children to high-quality education, particularly college education, would have
a significant effect on overall economic mobility. We also found that race matters, and it matters even after we control for a host of parental background factors, as well as for education and health, welfare receipt and female headship. We argued that this reflects inequality of opportunity by race.The findings regarding the importance of health are also troubling, but we noted that the precise mechanisms are not clear.


The intergenerational data thus serve as an evocative way of summarizing a complex set of processes that lead the children of rich parents to fare better than the children of low-income and middle-class parents. But for policy analysis, and the monitoring of the effects of policy intervention, we need to observe each of these processes, rather than their joint effect. The best way to know if, say, increased student aid is improving economic opportunity is to see if more children from low- and middle-income
---------------------------------------------
23 Note that race belongs on this list as long as economic outcomes display a partial correlation with socially-defined
racial categories, after controlling for other factors in the equation, and regardless of the precise mechanism by which
this correlation is generated, about which this analysis is silent.
----------------------------------------------

families are going to college, not to see if the parent-child income correlation has fallen once these children have reached middle age. Similarly, we may not have the patience to wait until our PSID sample’s parents start to die off in large numbers in order to observe the effects of their inheritances on the intergenerational income elasticity. We can make sensible policy recommendations on the question of the estate tax on a priori grounds: The larger the inheritances received by the sons and daughters of the rich, the lower the intergenerational economic mobility.


In sum, the intergenerational findings paint a portrait of a society in which family background matters a great deal, and matters for reasons that many people find unjust. Our national commitment to equality of opportunity requires that we take these statistics seriously, gain a better understanding of the mechanisms at work and work towards policies that will allow all Americans to reach their full economic potential.

The short-run analysis revealed that, despite solid growth in GDP, household short-term income mobility at the median in 2003-04 was no more favorable than in the recession years of 1990-91.
Both large upward and large downward movements have become more frequent, and it is coherent to argue that this combination produces greater insecurity and reduced social welfare, compared with a more stable economic environment. This may be evidence of a fundamental shift in the relation between economic growth and economic security, as may be the finding that even those who work overtime on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.


Increased volatility of year-to-year incomes is sometimes interpreted as offsetting the effects of increased inequality of income. The argument is that the recent trend toward rising inequality of incomes in any given year need not translate into a rise in the inequality of lifetime incomes, provided that people are increasingly mobile throughout the income distribution over the course of their lifetimes. But if our concerns about the costs of volatility are well founded, then this argument seems distinctly misguided. If greater volatility of income from year to year is the price we have to pay in order to reduce the inequality of long-run lifetime incomes, perhaps we should shop elsewhere. The alternative of less inequality in annual incomes, and less churning within the
income distribution over one’s lifetime, has much to recommend itself. The assumption behind this argument, however, is that some significant share of this income volatility is involuntary, as opposed to a manifestation of people’s ever-changing desires as regards labor force participation. The relative importance of the voluntary and involuntary components of income volatility is a question that deserves further study.

One bright spot is that upward short-term mobility from the bottom has risen; it may also be comforting to some that the top decile is enjoying greater economic security. For the middle class, however, the recent economic expansion has generated tepid growth in median household income, and a considerable increase in the risk of major income losses from year to year. In today’s environment of record levels of both secured and unsecured debt, these losses may have lasting effects on their financial health.