Why do we continue to pretend there is an untapped black talent pool?

[Midnight Marauder]

You also should supply a link to wherever you pasted this hokum from.

His ass, and he never backs any of it up with anything credible.

good grief, I have brought a bunch of links to add info to my comments. did antone respond to THIS post?

IanC
Registered User
Member #21028 Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 82
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0


let's look at the last link first. here is an html link Test "Title"
the study was performed to explore the reasons for black/white(and hispanic) wage gap.

Quote:
Our approachis a parsimoniously specified wage equation that controls for skillwith the score of a test administered as teenagers prepared to leavehigh school and embark on work careers or postsecondary educa-tion. Independent evidence shows that this test score is a raciallyunbiased measure of the skills and abilities these teenagers wereabout to bring to the labor market. We find that this one test scoreexplains all of the black-white wage gap for young women and muchof the gap for young men. For today's young adults, the black-whitewage gap primarily reflects a skill gap
It then goes on to explain how the AFQT was shown to be a good predictor of work performance and also shown to be non racially biased. This study is also politically correct so any of you from the 'other side' don't have to worry about getting polluted by reading it. I would love to have a reasoned discussion about it actually.
The first two links are very similar, and show that job experience shows diminishing returns on job performanced while general mental ability shows increasing importance with respect to job performance.


plenty of fodder for both sides in that link.

You have posted no link. Do you even know what one is? (Hint: It's clickable to others.)

Like this one, which fits you perfectly:

>clickme<

 

[xotoxi]

 

[Joe_Penalty]

IQ testing may not encompass all the traits that people consider to be 'intelligence' but it does a good job of picking out those that are capable of learning and making good decisions. Typically the top 1/6 of our population (IQ115+) make up the bulk of professional occupations. But only 2% of blacks score that high. Is it any wonder that top schools struggle to find qualified blacks to fill medical, law and engineering positions? They have to dip much further into the black cohort to reach acceptable numbers of students and it shows in black performance and graduation rates. If blacks had to have the same qualifications as whites and asians then a single school like MIT would use up virtually all of the high scoring black candidates. Instead elite schools take best that they can find, leaving 2nd tier schools with 3rd or 4th tier black students, and so on. Many or most black students find themselves in a school where their qualifications are at the bottom and their performance and graduation rate reflect that.
This same scenerio is played out in many AA dominated jobs. AA gets blacks a job but their poor qualifications make it difficult to promote them or put them in positions of responsibility. Of course the blacks who truly were qualified find it difficult to escape the taint of low expectations given to other blacks.
This scarcity of talent problem is the main reason why Africa is such a mess. With only a tiny portion of the sub-saharan population scoring as high as IQ100, there are few to fill professional and executive positions and jobs that are filled with IQ100 personnel here (like teachers, military officers, police) are filled with incompetents in Africa.

Definitely fallacious.

obviously I disagree. what points are you saying are fallacious, are you disagreeing with the absolute numbers or the general ideas? do you have anything besides rhetoric to back up your opinion? I am honestly interested

You are using statistics to make a definite assertion.

This argument teeters on the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) and the Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance (ad Ignorantiam).

ALL statistics are limited to sample size and contain bias, systematic error and random error. The only way to make a definite assertion from statistics is to sample the ENTIRE population. Even then, you risk systematic error and random error.

So in actuality, you CANNOT logically make the assertion or imply that ALL blacks are inferior to all others.

 

[IanC]

So Ianc... now that you've outlined what you see is a problem, then what, praytell, is your solution?

start pointing out to black children that individual responsibilty is how you attain skills, and then hold them responsible to do it. no more endless crutch of 'white racism did this to you'.

revamp affirmative action so that it is driven by the individual rather than the racial quotas so prevelent now

Somehow get black culture to value parenthood more. Two parents, deeply involved with their children's lives is a large first step to success. I don't usually like to present personal anecdotes but what the he11. I recently attended a workshop at my son's school on how to deal with teenagers. As I looked around, at least half were couples, many I had seen before at events where they were volunteers, and all appeared at least 35. Haha, the people who probably LEAST needed to be there made up the majority of the room.

enough for now?

 

[IanC]

So in actuality, you CANNOT logically make the assertion or imply that ALL blacks are inferior to all others.

I have never said all blacks are inferior to all others. see my comment to Ravi.

If you can't make any assertions on known data why is white racism blamed for black underperformance? You are saying both that the data is incomplete and the causal correlations are unprovable. So we should stop bean counting by race and let the chips fall where they will? That would probavly be a better system than the one we have now.

 

[IanC]

You have posted no link. Do you even know what one is? (Hint: It's clickable to others.)

the link in the original post works. what are you complaining about?

 

[IanC]

You are using statistics to make a definite assertion.

I made rational explanation of why I thought certain things happen. I buttressed it with scholarly studies. What is your explanation and what evidence do you present to show how likely it is to be true?

 

[Joe_Penalty]

So in actuality, you CANNOT logically make the assertion or imply that ALL blacks are inferior to all others.

I have never said all blacks are inferior to all others. see my comment to Ravi.

If you can't make any assertions on known data why is white racism blamed for black underperformance? You are saying both that the data is incomplete and the causal correlations are unprovable. So we should stop bean counting by race and let the chips fall where they will? That would probavly be a better system than the one we have now.

It was implied by the content of your argument that ALL blacks were inferior.

You CAN make assertions, just NOT definite assertions. You would definitely have to include quantifiers in your language.

In logic when you do not specify a quantity, it is automatically implied ALL. You do not state whether it is most, half, many, few, or some. Then your statistics would APPEAR to offer more support.

The reason statistics are avoided being used as premises for a given conclusion, is because of the biases that accompany such alleged support. Statistics have very limited credibility. For that reason, statistics can offer no more than frailty for inductive support.

To the question; Why is white racism blamed for black underperformance?

Again, I see "Why is ALL white racism blamed for ALL black underperformance?

Hence, ALL cases of white racism is blamed for ALL cases of black underperformance. That means there is NOT ONE case of black underperformance caused by anything other than white racism. You ask "Why is this the case?" But that statement is false. Because I am sure at least one case of mental illness (that would cause one to under perform) among blacks is NOT caused by white racism.

There is NO intelligence or performance level exclusive to one particular group of people. Because intelligence or performance can be measured in so many different ways, dependent upon the individual. Also, let us NOT forget the bias that accompanies conducted studies.

 

[IanC]

why are you accusing me of something I haven't done.

It was implied by the content of your argument that ALL blacks were inferior.

whereas my OP (which you quoted, so you must have read it, right?) specifically stated that there are blacks in the IQ115+ range, just in a different proportion than whites.

To the question; Why is white racism blamed for black underperformance?

Again, I see "Why is ALL white racism blamed for ALL black underperformance?

Hence, ALL cases of white racism is blamed for ALL cases of black underperformance. That means there is NOT ONE case of black underperformance caused by anything other than white racism. You ask "Why is this the case?" But that statement is false. Because I am sure at least one case of mental illness (that would cause one to under perform) among blacks is NOT caused by white racism.

There is NO intelligence or performance level exclusive to one particular group of people. Because intelligence or performance can be measured in so many different ways, dependent upon the individual. Also, let us NOT forget the bias that accompanies conducted studies.

throughout this thread I have talked about environmental, cultural and genetic components to the gap. when asked for my motivation for doing so I said because I think it is unfair to continually blame white racism as the main reason for black underperformance when there are more logical and competently studied reasons that I have shown and backed up with studies done by competent researchers.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

why are you accusing me of something I haven't done.

It was implied by the content of your argument that ALL blacks were inferior.

whereas my OP (which you quoted, so you must have read it, right?) specifically stated that there are blacks in the IQ115+ range, just in a different proportion than whites.

To the question; Why is white racism blamed for black underperformance?

Again, I see "Why is ALL white racism blamed for ALL black underperformance?

Hence, ALL cases of white racism is blamed for ALL cases of black underperformance. That means there is NOT ONE case of black underperformance caused by anything other than white racism. You ask "Why is this the case?" But that statement is false. Because I am sure at least one case of mental illness (that would cause one to under perform) among blacks is NOT caused by white racism.

There is NO intelligence or performance level exclusive to one particular group of people. Because intelligence or performance can be measured in so many different ways, dependent upon the individual. Also, let us NOT forget the bias that accompanies conducted studies.

throughout this thread I have talked about environmental, cultural and genetic components to the gap. when asked for my motivation for doing so I said because I think it is unfair to continually blame white racism as the main reason for black underperformance when there are more logical and competently studied reasons that I have shown and backed up with studies done by competent researchers.

You did list statistics (inductive argument qualities) placing some blacks in certain data ranges, but you destroyed any merit contained in those references when you stated things like blacks getting jobs with poor qualifications, and Africa and its alleged incompetent professional personnel. Those are "ALL" (A) classified statements, which diminishes your entire argument because your premises are supposed to support those statements. You have to change the language by using words like maybe, probably, sometimes, most (used once) of the time (inductive argument terminology). But instead you insist on using more general terms (deductive argument form). The two types of argumentation have to be separated in order for your argument to make a credible stance. Your argument now is NOT cogent.

You really have to reword your ENTIRE argument for it to be cogent.

You have to draw an inductive conclusion. Implicitly; All blacks are inferior (deductive conclusion).

If that is not the correct conclusion you draw from your premises, then what is the correct conclusion?

 

[IanC]

so joe- you don't consider any statistical evidence as good enough. and if someone else's argument doesn't meet your standard for grammar then that too is inadmissible. and you won't defend your own words. I guess that is just about it then

 

[xotoxi]

So Ianc... now that you've outlined what you see is a problem, then what, praytell, is your solution?

...Somehow get black culture to value parenthood more. Two parents, deeply involved with their children's lives is a large first step to success....

Are these going to be Federal mandates?

That black children must be raised by two parents?

 

[IanC]

we can't, at least for the forseeable fututre, do much to affect black genetics. we have already improved the environment aspect to a large degree with very little to show for it. that leaves culture. can we, or should we try to manipulate black culture? I think blacks will have to decide for themselves. and judging from past behavior it leaves me pessimistic that there will be any significant improvement in the near future.

 

[IanC]

for joe-

Charlton BG. Jacob Bronowski&#8217;s principle of tolerance. Medical Hypotheses.
2008; 70: 215-17.

Summary

In The principle of tolerance, Jacob Bronowski discusses a vital but neglected characteristic of science: that &#8216;&#8216;all information is imperfect&#8217;&#8217;, and &#8216;&#8216;our ability to work and act in the real world depends on our accepting a tolerance in our recognition and in our language&#8217;&#8217;. The nineteenth century ideal that &#8220;science should speak the perfect factual truth has turned out to be inaccessible&#8221;. But this should not be a cause for regret, because &#8220;if things had to be identical before you could recognize them, you would never recognize anything at all&#8221;. The principle of tolerance is the judgment that two instances are sufficiently similar that we can treat them as the same for present purposes. &#8220;Tolerance &#8211; is the essential safeguard, the essential degree of coarseness which makes it possible to work with abstract entities in the real world&#8221;. Too much tolerance and you are misled by random variation; too little tolerance and you lose valuable information. The most beneficial degree of tolerance must be a matter of judgment because it cannot be determined in advance. So, the best level of tolerance is known only retrospectively, by comparing the rate of progress of science when a greater or lesser degree of tolerance is assumed. The judgment of tolerance which led to the fastest scientific progress is justified as having been the best. Science therefore needs to tolerate different judgments of tolerance among scientists, allowing a multiplicity of levels of tolerance to coexist and compete. Bronowski&#8217;s principle of tolerance locates the roots of science in the domain of human creativity, in the necessity for personal judgment in science, and in the provisional and progressive nature of scientific truth: &#8220;You have to tell the truth the way you see it. And yet you have to be tolerant of the fact that neither you nor the man you are arguing with is going to get it right&#8221;.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do we pretend IanC has any link to reality?

 

[Joe_Penalty]

so joe- you don't consider any statistical evidence as good enough. and if someone else's argument doesn't meet your standard for grammar then that too is inadmissible. and you won't defend your own words. I guess that is just about it then

Please do not Straw Man me kid.

This is not my words, it is very BASIC argument analysis or logic.

How can anyone draw a definite conclusion from statistical data as premises?

Especially if the data is in percentages.

You made a Deductive conclusion using Inductive premises.

Does this shed any new found light on the lesson?

What, you think I am making this stuff up?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Why do we continue to ignore that there is a huge talent pool for WHITE Centers for the NBA? LOL!

 

[IanC]

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfredbox2.html

here are some correlations between measured IQ and social traits for young whites. of course correlation does not mean causation but it certainly makes for better predictions. and the exact numbers don't matter as much as the general trends. lower IQ is associated with increased amounts of negative social outcomes and higher IQ is associated with increased amounts of positive social outcomes. is there anyone who actually doubts this?

while I am unaware of this type of study done for blacks exclusively, (the researcher would never work again), let us make some predictions. blacks have tested roughly 1 standard deviation lower than whites ever since mental testing was invented, roughly IQ85 in the USA. hmmm...that would suggest that blacks as a group would likely drop out of school more often, have illegitimate children more often, be incarcerated more often, be out of work more often, and live in poverty more often, compared to whites as a group. pretty accurate predictions if you ask me.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Scientific American: Feature Article: The General Intelligence Factor: November 1998

here are some correlations between measured IQ and social traits for young whites. of course correlation does not mean causation but it certainly makes for better predictions. and the exact numbers don't matter as much as the general trends. lower IQ is associated with increased amounts of negative social outcomes and higher IQ is associated with increased amounts of positive social outcomes. is there anyone who actually doubts this?

while I am unaware of this type of study done for blacks exclusively, (the researcher would never work again), let us make some predictions. blacks have tested roughly 1 standard deviation lower than whites ever since mental testing was invented, roughly IQ85 in the USA. hmmm...that would suggest that blacks as a group would likely drop out of school more often, have illegitimate children more often, be incarcerated more often, be out of work more often, and live in poverty more often, compared to whites as a group. pretty accurate predictions if you ask me.

Interesting Document and Chart.

About "young whites." You failed to use a quantifier. How many? Because that is to be read as "measured IQ and social traits for ALL young whites." When studies are to inform, they are supposed to be very detailed.

Predictions can be wrong, what you want to do is strengthen your position.

Exact numbers do matter very much. If fact, that is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. That is if you want to make an attempt to strengthen your position. The numerical data of this alleged competent researcher needed more detail. We could compare the exact numbers with the overall population of the subject (all young whites), at that time (1997), to determine the strength and or validity of the results.

The overall intentions of this research is questionable.

You are right. I think we can agree with high and low IQ's can be ASSOCIATED with positive and negative social outcomes respectively.

This is where you weaken your position or invalidate your claim, you begin to SPECULATE. Speculation is a BIG no no in logic.

Speculate - (transitive verb) to reason WITHOUT sufficient or conclusive evidence. The Free Dictionary, Webster, Cambridge Dictionary.

When your subject is not preceded by a quantifier, the subject is to be taken generally. So based on the scope of a general subject makes the subject unlimited. Therefore, the subject includes ALL items or members that can be classified as such. This is beginning to make me question your integrity, because you SEEM to be a very competent individual.

Why are you failing horribly to grasp this very simple and very basic concept?

I could critique the remainder of the passage, but you have to first acknowledge then correct your fallacious reasoning. Because in LOGIC, especially INDUCTIVE argumentation, numbers are the primary focus. Without numbers, induction has NO merit.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

If I am wrong about your implied inferential claim, then what is the correct conclusion you draw from the opening post?