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

[geauxtohell]

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?

IQ Testing

Most of the abilities measured by an IQ test tend to level off around age 16, so this method does not work for adults. To convert a mentally retarded adult's IQ into a rough age equivalent, multiply the IQ by 16, and then divide by 100. So an adult with a 50 IQ is functioning at roughly an 8-year-old level.

 

[IanC]

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

they may have been poor students but cognitive testing would have shown that they had much higher potential than they were showing.

do you think that everone could learn and understand calculus if they only 'tried hard enough'? why do so many teachers have such poor english skills? I have read many stories of teachers who repeatedly failed state competency exams despite real effort to pass. what's up with that, the tests aren't that hard.

 

[IanC]

Most of the abilities measured by an IQ test tend to level off around age 16, so this method does not work for adults. To convert a mentally retarded adult's IQ into a rough age equivalent, multiply the IQ by 16, and then divide by 100. So an adult with a 50 IQ is functioning at roughly an 8-year-old level.

dude!!! that simply means that 16 is the last year that chronological age is used for comparison. a 30yr old is still considered 16 when comparing that individuals abilities to average age norms. this type of comparison is often found in the media when grade12 blacks are said to have comparable skills to gr8 whites.

 

[IanC]

another portion of that letter to the WSJ...

Practical Importance

9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

11. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multifaceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management): it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work).

12. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

13. Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences."


higher intelligence comes into play every day of everyones' life. its like the casino's edge in gambling. in the long run it pays off.

 

[geauxtohell]

Most of the abilities measured by an IQ test tend to level off around age 16, so this method does not work for adults. To convert a mentally retarded adult's IQ into a rough age equivalent, multiply the IQ by 16, and then divide by 100. So an adult with a 50 IQ is functioning at roughly an 8-year-old level.

dude!!! that simply means that 16 is the last year that chronological age is used for comparison. a 30yr old is still considered 16 when comparing that individuals abilities to average age norms. this type of comparison is often found in the media when grade12 blacks are said to have comparable skills to gr8 whites.

I understand that, I am simply saying that past 16 a person's IQ test score shouldn't go up.

I don't buy for a second that a person's capacity for intelligence caps out at 16.

In fact, the brain isn't even fully developed until the mid-20s.

You are relying on an archaic, 100 year old test to make broad sweeping generalizations across racial lines when the study groups haven't really been normalized.

What's worse is that when they have attempted to normalize the groups (as I pointed out for SES) and the difference drops to five points you just brush it off.

Are you asking real questions here or have you made up your mind already and are merely seeking reinforcement?

At any rate, this is OPED, but basically sums up my feelings on IQ tests:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

Questioning the test

Beyond the task of developing better theories and tests of intelligence lies a more fundamental question: Should we even be using intelligence tests in the first place?

In certain situations where intelligence tests are currently being used, the consensus answer appears to be "no." A recent report of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE), for example, suggests that the use of intelligence tests to diagnose learning disabilities should be discontinued.

For decades, learning disabilities have been diagnosed using the "IQ-achievement discrepancy model," according to which children whose achievement scores are a standard deviation or more below their IQ scores are identified as learning disabled.

The problem with that model, says Patti Harrison, PhD, a professor of school psychology at the University of Alabama, is that the discrepancy doesn't tell you anything about what kind of intervention might help the child learn. Furthermore, the child's actual behavior in the classroom and at home is often a better indicator of a child's ability than an abstract intelligence test, so children might get educational services that are more appropriate to their needs if IQ tests were discouraged, she says.

More at the link as needed.

IMO (and that's all it is, my opinion) I see IQ referenced in three types of scenarios.
1.) As a diagnostic criteria to evaluate degrees of mental retardation for people that are two STD below the mean. I think that is wholly appropriate.
2.) As a reason for people to brag about how smart they are (usually MENSA members) and people who are too awkward to realize how awkward and off-putting it is when someone tells you how smart they are.
3.) As an excuse to stigmatize a certain group of people as being "less intelligent" than others and, thus, less than desirable in society.

Like I said, 1 is legit. 2 and 3 are bullshit.

The bottom line is this, if IQ tests were that important they would be mandated for every child below the age of 16.

BTW, I was somewhat curious about MENSA so I went to their webpage and checked out who their "prominent members" are and found this:

http://www.mensa.org/prominent-mensans

That list is a little underwhelming, but hey, the do have Geena Davis, the "Ask Marilyn" lady, a Playboy Bunny turned Chiropractor.

Strangely, I didn't see any Nobel Laureates or prominent scientists on the list. Lots of writers, but few of note.

 

[JBeukema]

What Different IQ Scores Mean Technology Review: Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic Racial IQ Differences – Hammer Finally Drops « Guy White: Making Sense On Race Government watchdog considers ban on IQ booster drugs | Politics | The Guardian IQ - Brain size and IQ

 

[geauxtohell]

Quick comment on some of these links:

Technology Review: Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ

I'll buy that brain development correlates to intelligence. However, in the case of IQ tests, that's problematic since the brain goes through it's last wiring during the mid-twenties.

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

From this article:

The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

When heritabililty is around 50%, you can certainly say that there is a genetic component, but it's not terribly strong. Basically you can flip a coin. That doesn't translate to a strong association across a large group. I might have misunderstood that.

Also, they noted that the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is 70%? Does that mean that the average person in sub-Saharan Africa is mentally retarded? I don't think so.

Government watchdog considers ban on IQ booster drugs | Politics | The Guardian

I wouldn't call methylphenidate (ritalin) an IQ booster. It doesn't permanently improve intelligence. What it does is allow people to study for long periods of time and focus (it is an amphetamine). I know it's heavily abused at the graduate level (I don't use it, but have plenty of friends who do). It remains to be seen if the studying they do under the effects of ritalin helps them to retain it or if it's just a good "cram" drug.

 

[syrenn]

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.

I have never calmed that they do not under preform. I am saying that it is totally ignorant to say that black people are genetically more stupid then anyone else.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

I have never calmed that they do not under preform. I am saying that it is totally ignorant to say that black people are genetically more stupid then anyone else.

Since we don't have a clear grasp on the genetics of intelligence, it's stupid to say that anyone is genetically more or less intelligent than anyone else.

 

[IanC]

Most of the abilities measured by an IQ test tend to level off around age 16, so this method does not work for adults. To convert a mentally retarded adult's IQ into a rough age equivalent, multiply the IQ by 16, and then divide by 100. So an adult with a 50 IQ is functioning at roughly an 8-year-old level.

dude!!! that simply means that 16 is the last year that chronological age is used for comparison. a 30yr old is still considered 16 when comparing that individuals abilities to average age norms. this type of comparison is often found in the media when grade12 blacks are said to have comparable skills to gr8 whites.

I understand that, I am simply saying that past 16 a person's IQ test score shouldn't go up.

I don't buy for a second that a person's capacity for intelligence caps out at 16.

In fact, the brain isn't even fully developed until the mid-20s.

You are relying on an archaic, 100 year old test to make broad sweeping generalizations across racial lines when the study groups haven't really been normalized.

What's worse is that when they have attempted to normalize the groups (as I pointed out for SES) and the difference drops to five points you just brush it off.

Are you asking real questions here or have you made up your mind already and are merely seeking reinforcement?

At any rate, this is OPED, but basically sums up my feelings on IQ tests:

Intelligent intelligence testing

Questioning the test

Beyond the task of developing better theories and tests of intelligence lies a more fundamental question: Should we even be using intelligence tests in the first place?

In certain situations where intelligence tests are currently being used, the consensus answer appears to be "no." A recent report of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE), for example, suggests that the use of intelligence tests to diagnose learning disabilities should be discontinued.

For decades, learning disabilities have been diagnosed using the "IQ-achievement discrepancy model," according to which children whose achievement scores are a standard deviation or more below their IQ scores are identified as learning disabled.

The problem with that model, says Patti Harrison, PhD, a professor of school psychology at the University of Alabama, is that the discrepancy doesn't tell you anything about what kind of intervention might help the child learn. Furthermore, the child's actual behavior in the classroom and at home is often a better indicator of a child's ability than an abstract intelligence test, so children might get educational services that are more appropriate to their needs if IQ tests were discouraged, she says.

More at the link as needed.

IMO (and that's all it is, my opinion) I see IQ referenced in three types of scenarios.
1.) As a diagnostic criteria to evaluate degrees of mental retardation for people that are two STD below the mean. I think that is wholly appropriate.
2.) As a reason for people to brag about how smart they are (usually MENSA members) and people who are too awkward to realize how awkward and off-putting it is when someone tells you how smart they are.
3.) As an excuse to stigmatize a certain group of people as being "less intelligent" than others and, thus, less than desirable in society.

Like I said, 1 is legit. 2 and 3 are bullshit.

The bottom line is this, if IQ tests were that important they would be mandated for every child below the age of 16.

you are mistaken about my position about intelligence. I do not advocate everyone being tested and being given a 'number' that stays with them for life. the noise involved with individual measurements is too high. the power of cognitive testing comes from large sample sizes. imprecise high and low measurements tend to even out. even multiple tests of the same individual become more precise and reliable as the number of tests go up. if someone takes 5 cognitive tests on different occassions that imply IQ 95, 102,103, 99 and 101 then you can be pretty certain that their real IQ is very close to 100.

if 1,000,000 blacks take an IQ test that says their average is 85, then you can be pretty sure their average IQ is 85. and that is the reason blacks do poorly in society. you say controlling for SES narrows the gap in IQ. I say controlling for IQ narrows the gap in SES. which one of us is right?

a study done on the NLSY shows that sibling pairs (equal SES) show large discrepancies in social traits with the higher IQ sibling doing better than the lower. studies abound with results that show smarter people do better.

 

[IanC]

I have never calmed that they do not under preform. I am saying that it is totally ignorant to say that black people are genetically more stupid then anyone else.

OK. you think their underperformance is culturally produced. it is still measuably underperformance.

just for curiosity, why do you think poor whites out perform affluent blacks in the California school system? if that doesn't fix cultural what does? can anything?

 

[geauxtohell]

you are mistaken about my position about intelligence. I do not advocate everyone being tested and being given a 'number' that stays with them for life. the noise involved with individual measurements is too high. the power of cognitive testing comes from large sample sizes. imprecise high and low measurements tend to even out. even multiple tests of the same individual become more precise and reliable as the number of tests go up. if someone takes 5 cognitive tests on different occassions that imply IQ 95, 102,103, 99 and 101 then you can be pretty certain that their real IQ is very close to 100.

if 1,000,000 blacks take an IQ test that says their average is 85, then you can be pretty sure their average IQ is 85. and that is the reason blacks do poorly in society. you say controlling for SES narrows the gap in IQ. I say controlling for IQ narrows the gap in SES. which one of us is right?

a study done on the NLSY shows that sibling pairs (equal SES) show large discrepancies in social traits with the higher IQ sibling doing better than the lower. studies abound with results that show smarter people do better.

You are right about one thing, I have no clue what your position is? What is it?

My position is that it's asinine to say "blacks do poorly in society" and it is completely asinine to attribute that to IQ and then it is the height of absurdity to then make a chicken and egg argument.

If you want to put as much weight as you apparently do on IQ testing, that's your prerogative. The rest of the world is basically unconcerned.

 

[JBeukema]

Also, they noted that the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is 70%? Does that mean that the average person in sub-Saharan Africa is mentally retarded? I don't think so.

Your question is addressed in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861"]this book[/ame].

 

[IanC]

You are right about one thing, I have no clue what your position is? What is it?

simply put: intelligence counts, man or woman, black or white, white collar or blue collar. a constant force in everyones' life

10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

 

[IanC]

My position is that it's asinine to say "blacks do poorly in society" and it is completely asinine to attribute that to IQ

hahaha. I think it is asinine to say that blacks DON'T do poorly in society. does anyone actually aspire to match the average black crime and education rates?

 

[geauxtohell]

Also, they noted that the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is 70%? Does that mean that the average person in sub-Saharan Africa is mentally retarded? I don't think so.

Your question is addressed in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861"]this book[/ame].

I've got a long reading list. Needless to say, I don't think that will make the cut.

 

[geauxtohell]

My position is that it's asinine to say "blacks do poorly in society" and it is completely asinine to attribute that to IQ

hahaha. I think it is asinine to say that blacks DON'T do poorly in society. does anyone actually aspire to match the average black crime and education rates?

Crime rates 100 years ago, 50 years ago, today, or 50 years in the future?

I would attribute the crime and education rates (still low when compared to the whole) to socioeconomics and certainly not to any sort of innate characteristic, but I understand why you are so desperate for us to buy the IQ number as the "end all, be all" while dismissing any suggestions that the number is skewed.

So if this is a genetic factor you can blame, that means you have an excuse to view them as a permanent underclass that can't raise itself out of it's current condition.

 

[JBeukema]

Also, they noted that the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is 70%? Does that mean that the average person in sub-Saharan Africa is mentally retarded? I don't think so.

Your question is addressed in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861"]this book[/ame].

I've got a long reading list. Needless to say, I don't think that will make the cut.

Then I guess you don't want your question answered. They address that point specifically.


edit: page 130

 

[JBeukema]

I would attribute the crime and education rates (still low when compared to the whole) to socioeconomics

Yes, we make it so hard for them with all those damned handouts. Clearly, they need more government handouts and we need to further lower the bar for them. After all, that's how the Asians did/do so well

 

[IanC]

My position is that it's asinine to say "blacks do poorly in society" and it is completely asinine to attribute that to IQ

hahaha. I think it is asinine to say that blacks DON'T do poorly in society. does anyone actually aspire to match the average black crime and education rates?

Crime rates 100 years ago, 50 years ago, today, or 50 years in the future?

I would attribute the crime and education rates (still low when compared to the whole) to socioeconomics and certainly not to any sort of innate characteristic, but I understand why you are so desperate for us to buy the IQ number as the "end all, be all" while dismissing any suggestions that the number is skewed.

So if this is a genetic factor you can blame, that means you have an excuse to view them as a permanent underclass that can't raise itself out of it's current condition.

50 years in the future? what about now? if we don't acknowledge the differences and find the reasons now, why do you think there will be a difference in 50 years? as usual, wishful thinking reigns supreme