One possible way to end Affirmative Action?

[Malachi151]

I'd just stop short in claiming the difference is genetic. I think the difference is real, we just don't know what causes it.

Its the magical mystery difference. Sounds like garbage to me.

I never said that there is no genetic difference, but even a general genetic difference does not preclude environmental factors either.

In order to prove that AA has no merit you would have to prove that NONE of the difference has to do with environment.

You would have to prove that every ethic groups has exactly equal oppertunity or that equal oppertunity is not affected by race in any way, etc.

Even if discrimination based on race completely went away, if everyone totally forgot about race, if you start off with a larger percentage of one group in poverty than another, the expectation would be if everyone really is equal, that that descrepancy will continue on forever. In order for it to change you would have to assume that the groups who are worse off are actually better then the other groups and will improve their status by being more competative than the rest.

Sorry, but you don't get the luxury of saying that its not environment nor is it genetic. Its one or the other, period. If its a combination of both then that means that environment is still an issue. In cannot be anything other that environment or genetics, there is nothing else unless you want to claim they are inferior for supernatural reasons.

The only way to say that AA is useless is to say that blacks, or whatever group, are simply naturally inferior in terms of what it takes to be sucessful in American culture.

I think the error with AA is the assumption that education makes one smart.

It doesn't.

Smart people get educated.

Wrong, but AA is not just about education, its also about employment. Education can help anyone, no matter how stupid they are. An educated person with an IQ or 80 is still better off then and uneducated person with an IQ of 80.

Not all intelligent people may have access to education, or may be in an enviroment condusive to learning. You can be intelligent and grow up in a single parent household with 5 siblings in a crack house and go to a crappy public school and not care about education because of your environment, yet still score high on an IQ test, yet never get a good education and never get a good job, and instead put your skills to dealing drugs and stealing cars.

Put the same person in a better setting and they may become a doctor instead, unless you think that everyone is a born this, or a born that, in which case why even have education at all.

Hence, accepting people into an academic program when the lack the cognitive ability to succeed in the program will always be doomed to failure.

You assume that the only reason someone may do poorly in school or SAT tests is intelligence, which it isn't. Lots of people do poorly in highschool and great in college, or visa versa. Furthermore the idea is that even if these people do not excel in higher education at least they get a higher education and it is then more likely that THEIR CHILDREN will be better off. Its not about helping the individual directly is about builidng future generations that are born into better circumstances.

Of course it also goes into the heart of capitalism. Capitalism naturally creates separate classes. We have to use programs to countract that tendancy. In a free-market system with no social or economic regulations classes would quickly become stratified and a cast system develops where people have little economic or social mobility.

 

[bpesta22]

I'd just stop short in claiming the difference is genetic. I think the difference is real, we just don't know what causes it. [/b]

Its the magical mystery difference. Sounds like garbage to me.

My point was just because the evidence for the environment is weak, doesn't mean the genetic conclusion follows.

I tend to go with the data-- so, although the difference could be genetic, I'm not convinced given the data.

I'm even less convinced given the data on environment.

Thus, my claim that the difference is real, and we just don't know still seems, IMO, to be the best conclusion.

Re: the rest of your post.

I disagree with your comments on education. I'm not sure a person with an 80 IQ could get an education, and I'm pretty sure the "education" he'd get wouldn't help him succeed in life any better. Unfortunately, this person's life accomplishments would be limited by a low IQ. Certainly, he could overcome this and succeed despite his lack of smarts, but the cards are stacked against him. The crime comes when we deny someone who deserves the education the opportunity because we feel compelled to correct something that probably can't be corrected (no one's ever done anything to raise a person's IQ in the long run).

Also, shouldn't we have some reasonable estimate of how much the black disadvantage is due to environment before we start implementing programs and preferences to correct the problem?

Isn't there some type of costs benefits analysis that should be applied?

We've poored gobs of money into head start, only to realize that trying to raise a kid's IQ by putting him in an enriched learning environment just doesn't work.

Again, I'm not necc. against AA for education, but I think you need the test scores first, and then we can give preference to certain races. Would you want to be the guy with the 90 IQ competing against the 115's, especially when your success or failure will confirm or refute their stereotypes.

Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets accepted into college is just a dumb idea, IMO?

B

 

[Malachi151]

My point was just because the evidence for the environment is weak, doesn't mean the genetic conclusion follows

First of all, you have not backed up your claim that the evidence for environment is weak. As far as I know its quite strong.

Or am I wrong that people who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor, that people who grow up in abusive households are more likely to be abusive, that people who grow up in families that argue a lot tend also to argue a lot, etc.

The evidence that I am aware of shows that genetics and environment play comparable roles. Its too simple to say they are equal, they are not. Genetics determine how environment affects behavior, but environment does, always, have some affect.

And of course environment definitely affects opportunity, obviously, and opportunity is what it's all about.

I tend to go with the data-- so, although the difference could be genetic, I'm not convinced given the data.

I'm even less convinced given the data on environment.

What data are you talking about?

Thus, my claim that the difference is real, and we just don't know still seems, IMO, to be the best conclusion.

That's just copout due to you not wanting to say that you think its all genetic.

disagree with your comments on education. I'm not sure a person with an 80 IQ could get an education, and I'm pretty sure the "education" he'd get wouldn't help him succeed in life any better.

That was an example, I didn't mean that they should be admitted to Yale at the expense of an intelligent white student. I just mean that education can always be positive to some degree.

Unfortunately, this person's life accomplishments would be limited by a low IQ.

Not really, look at George Bush Its a factor, yes, but a lot depends on environment and opportunity, in fact even more so. People who are less intelligent are more likely to stay in their same socioeconomic status, so if a person is born into a poor family and they are not intelligent then they have little or no opportunity, yet a person of equal intelligence born into a wealthy family will likely still have plenty of opportunity and a good lifestyle. I saw a graph on this once, but I dunno where the link is now.

The crime comes when we deny someone who deserves the education the opportunity because we feel compelled to correct something that probably can't be corrected (no one's ever done anything to raise a person's IQ in the long run).

Education and IQ have nothing to do with each other. Going to school is about education, not changing IQs. Why do you keep talking about IQ anyway? It's not even the point. Education is about information and career preparation.

Also, do you have any information about white people being denied an education due to AA? Kind of a big claim to make with no "data".

We aren't talking about "correcting" anything. No one is trying to make people "smarter", the issue is opportunity, for the 100th time. The issue is taking people who have less opportunity and giving them a leg up so that their children will more likely have more opportunity.

We've poored gobs of money into head start, only to realize that trying to raise a kid's IQ by putting him in an enriched learning environment just doesn't work.

Head Start is not about IQ. Its about education, two SEPARATE things.

Again, I'm not necc. against AA for education, but I think you need the test scores first, and then we can give preference to certain races. Would you want to be the guy with the 90 IQ competing against the 115's, especially when your success or failure will confirm or refute their stereotypes.

Show me any AA policy that refers to IQ tests for anything. There is no such thing. IQ is not used for these things. Tests that measure education and knowledge are used for entry into schools, not IQ tests. Of two people with equal IQs its likely that the one with a better environment will also get more out of education and do better on tests.

Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets accepted into college is just a dumb idea, IMO?

Well then all entry into college is dumb, because college entry is not based on cognitive ability, its based on tests of knowledge, two totally different things.

 

[jj]

JJ

These claims aren't true. I've always argued that the black white differences are neither due to environmental factors nor to test bias.

Err, don't assume I'm only talking about you, Mr Pest? Can that be right? B. Pest? ???? It doesn't sound right. Anyhow, ask your bud-in-posting Hammeg about why I might be a bit peeved by some of the terms applied.

And, I've backed my claims by citing relevant peer reviewed literature at every step.

I can also show lots of relevant peer-reviewed arguments for the 'cochlear amplifier' hypothesis, Lamarckism, and so on. Yes, I agree, you can find reviewed literature, that on all (I don't think 'both' is proper, it's not a two-valued proposition) sides of the fence.

I'd just stop short in claiming the difference is genetic. I think the difference is real, we just don't know what causes it. And, if it is envionmental, it's escaped about 80 years of research on potential aspects of the environment that might cause the difference.

I think prenatal care is quite clear, as is nuitrition as an infant/baby/toddler... As you say:

I think the error with AA is the assumption that education makes one smart.

It doesn't.

And if your mom isn't well fed and you don't get enough fats, etc, as an infant, yes, I agree, it might just be too late.

Smart people get educated.

Hence, accepting people into an academic program when the lack the cognitive ability to succeed in the program will always be doomed to failure.

But you can't presume that they can't succeed, either. I know of successful dyslexic research scientists (not one, mind you), just for one example, and I know more than one person who was a miserable failure at standardized testing OF THE KINDS THAT SCHOOLS USE until they got some education (aside from the second-language issue, that one is obvious and moot if you give the test in a first language) and were taught some of the "rules".

So it's not "doomed" in all cases, I dare say.

I have no idea how to separate the people, though, and I do agree that some people are much brighter than others. You've said (or was it Hammegk) that people's impressions were nearly always wrong, so we probably won't get anywhere there, but eventual results speak for themselves. I will say that with one or two exceptions, how a summer intern will produce seems to be predictable within a week or so of 9 weeks, but then again, the measures are hard to establish and experience suggests you'll quibble with the measures, which are subjective, but do involve patents, standards, etc, sometimes, which are quite concrete.

BTW, which issues do you want me to address with your claim that it's the solely the environment that's caused the black race to under achieve?
B

Once again, I have not claimed that. Please cease insisting otherwise. If you bother to go back to what I've said, I am VERY clearly not saying that it's "solely the environment". This is not the first time that that false, unethical straw man has been introduced on my "behalf", and I am exceptionally weary of it. Is there a reason that you continue with that particularly untoward straw man?

 

[JAR]

[snip]
Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that black people are intellectualy inferior?
[snip]

Plain and simple. I have noticed that intellectuals are much rarer among the black population than they are among the white population.

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines the noun "intellectual" as, "An intellectual person."

It defines the adjective "intellectual" as, "1.a. Of or relating to the intellect. b. Rational rather than emotional. 2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect. 3.a. Having or showing intellect, esp. to a high degree. b. Given to exercise of the intellect; inclined toward abstract thinking."

It defines the noun "intellect" as, "1.a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. 2. A person of great intellectual ability."

In view of these definitions and my personal experiences, I have found that white people are more likely to engage their ability to learn and reason and to think profoundly. Thus, white people generally are the intellectual superiors of black people.

 

[Malachi151]

Plain and simple. I have noticed that intellectuals are much rarer among the black population than they are among the white population.

You gotta be kidding me!

This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard, and immediately places you in the "not and intellectual" category.

You have "noticed". Nice scientific study there.

Let's see, your observations can be influenced by:

#1 Personal bias
#2 Media bias
#3 Cultural bias (of your culture and their culture)

How involved are you in the black community? How many black lawyers, doctors, scientists, politicians, do you hang out with?

This is one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard on a variety of levels. #1 it totally ignores what AA is all about, which is environment, which is to say that even if there were merit to your observations there are environmental reasons for them, and #2 your observations are completely useless, #3 becoming a recognized intellectual has a lot to do with the very things that AA is trying to address, white prejudice in not recognizing the achievements or potential of minorities.

How many times have studies prven layman's observatoins wrong? Like millions of times.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Malachi151, the guy is simply stating his observations. You are just pissed off because he is not bowing your politically correct guidelines.

You have not produced any facts showing that blacks are as intelligent as whites and asians (using IQ tests as a measure of intelligence), yet the BELL CURVE and mountains of data show in fact that they are not. And look at how well they do in school compared to whites and asians. Look at who leads the fields in intellectually demanding disciplines like physics, math, finance, etc. Look at military aptitude tests. Look at LSATs. Look at ASVABs. Look at SATs. The IQ numbers alone are beyond question.

I even pointed out that blacks from upper-middle-income "good homes" (from wealthy families in Boston, for example, who send their kids to the best private schools) score much lower than whites and asians as a whole. And this in the face of the fact that wealthier people are usually more intelligent than poor people. You have conveniently overlooked this point.

Have you read the BELL CURVE cover to cover? I have, twice. The raw number alone make the case, even if closed-minded liberals try to smear the rest of the work because they don't like the conclusions.

 

[bpesta22]

JJ: Point taken. I thought you might have forgoten about me when you claimed that no one on the other side of the debate here had any rational arguments / only resorted to name calling when challenged.

And, btw, yes, my user name includes my last name, Pesta.....although you said "pest" (haven't heard that one before!)

Malachi:

We've debated IQ at length in two or three threads. If interested, do a search.

I don't think you can separate education from IQ-- that's my point.

Iq correlates .50 with GPA and .55 with year's education. And, for example, the odds that a high school grad will have a higher IQ than a phd are 100:1.

College admissions exams like the SAT also correlate (.5 if memory serves) with IQ tests.

So, again: Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets the higher education is a bad idea.

Plus, I'm not sure college is the appropriate place for preparing low IQ people-- black or white-- for careers. Some type of tecnical training would seem far more relevant to them than, say, calculus or Shakespeare.

JMO.

B

 

[Malachi151]

JJ: Point taken. I thought you might have forgoten about me when you claimed that no one on the other side of the debate here had any rational arguments / only resorted to name calling when challenged.

And, btw, yes, my user name includes my last name, Pesta.....although you said "pest" (haven't heard that one before!)

Malachi:

We've debated IQ at length in two or three threads. If interested, do a search.

I don't think you can separate education from IQ-- that's my point.

Iq correlates .50 with GPA and .55 with year's education. And, for example, the odds that a high school grad will have a higher IQ than a phd are 100:1.

College admissions exams like the SAT also correlate (.5 if memory serves) with IQ tests.

So, again: Ignoring cognitive ability when deciding who gets the higher education is a bad idea.

Plus, I'm not sure college is the appropriate place for preparing low IQ people-- black or white-- for careers. Some type of tecnical training would seem far more relevant to them than, say, calculus or Shakespeare.

JMO.

B

Dude, you just... don't... get... it.

In order for any argument abotu IQ to be worth anything in relation to AA this is what you would have to show:

#1 That everyone in every school is learning to the maximum capacity of their intellectual ability.

#2 That everyone of equal IQ has equal oppertunity in relation to race.

Prove those things.

It does to even matter if what you say is correct, that blacks as a population has an averge IQ lower than whites. Assuming that is correct it still does not make a case against AA.

In order to make a case against AA you have to show that blacks, or any other minority, are not disadvantaged in any way other than by their IQ. You are making IQ out to be the be all and end all of everything, which it is not.

George W. Bush is one of the lowest IQ, actually I think the lowest IQ, I've read conflicting reports on that though, presidents we have ever had. My IQ is around 40 points higher than his, based on the reports that I read. He went to Yale(shop lifted, got 2 DWIs and did cocaine), made Cs, was given positions in oil companies, and is now president. I went to a local University on scholarship, made Bs, and went on to a $45K a year job. Oppertunity is not based on IQ, success is not based on IQ, quality of life is not based on IQ, contribution to society is not based on IQ, in America it is based largely on money and social acceptance, which is related to money.

Ability to contribute to society is also linked to oppertunity. Poor people have less oppertunity to benefit society. Society can only benfit by helping people who are disadvantaged to become no longer disadvantaged so that they can be productive and helpful, instead of a burden.

You have still failed to show how AA has a negative impact on whites as well. You have also failed to show that AA quotas disproportionate favor minorities beyond theri natural ability. In order to have any argument based on IQ you would first have to show have many blacks have what you consider to be an acceptable IQ for whatever program and then show that the quotas are disproportinately higher than the number of qualified people based on IQ if that is your basis.

Helping disadvantaged minorities become more affluent, which is really what this is all about, only helps to eliminate the negative aspects of poor minority culture. How can you complain about blacks being poor and having a higher rate of crime if you don't help blacks get out of poverty, and also at the same time claim that blacks.. damn got to go.

 

[Dancing David]

It defines the noun "intellect" as, "1.a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. 2. A person of great intellectual ability."

In view of these definitions and my personal experiences, I have found that white people are more likely to engage their ability to learn and reason and to think profoundly. Thus, white people generally are the intellectual superiors of black people.

Cool I like the Amepican Heritage Dictionary as well.

I just find that there are as many 'intellectuals' who will tell me the same thing about middle class rural americans as there are americans who say the same thing about blacks.
They have the same feelings about 'rednecks', 'peckers', 'gearheads' and 'grits' that you express about black people and I have found that rural americans are capapble of intellectual capacity and the same for black people. It tends to be a matter of where the energy is applied more than ability.
These are the same arguments that the Latini appleid to the Tadeschi and Gauls, that the Prussians applied to the Bavarians, the British applied to the Irish and Scots and that Americans have applied to the Irish, Italians and Polish.
I feel it is a mtter of cultural and class differences.

It cuts both ways as well, I certainly have met blacks who feel whites are stupid, for the same reasons.

 

[Dancing David]

IHave you read the BELL CURVE cover to cover? I have, twice. The raw number alone make the case, even if closed-minded liberals try to smear the rest of the work because they don't like the conclusions.

Sorry Ghengis I suggest you read on how to conduct meta analysis and testing theory before you take everything in that book as gospel truth.
If the schools and tests were devised by a non-white culture then there would be biasis towards non-whites.
Everyone talks about who smart Asians are as a whole, but rarely are there adjustments for socioeconomic factors. there are populations of asiand who are dropping out of school, joining gangs and doing all the things that lower class people do. but statisticaly they don't bump the curve.
There are class differences in america, there are life differences that effect testing and school as well. In a meta analysis those need to be contoled for and usually can't.
Something as simple as parents working two jobs, raising younger siblings and noisy enviroment can drasticaly effect test scores, and unless you match each case in one group to a similar case in another group, then you have not controled for all the variables in the meta analysis.
Then there are things like cultural investment in education, parental involvement and the money at the school, those also need to be taken into account in a controlled fashion in a meta analysis.

This is why even though every one in small twons likes to brags about thier schools, there kids consistantly test lower than the kids in larger towns. (At least in Illinois)

Peace

 

[BillyTK]

JJ.

You could throw out the Bell Curve-- pretend it never existed-- and still make the same claims as it did using other data sets.

I think the quarrel isn't with their stats, methods or results. It's the conclusion that the differences are genetic that's shaky.

The quarrel is that the conclusion leads the research, and not vice versa, which is not necessarily such a bad thing, except that H&M dropped instances from their stats sets, but didn't acknowledge the effect this could have on their results, and their results aren't replicable. Now, I've got nothing against cross-disciplinary research, but I'd be concerned that a behaviourist and a sociologist would publish without peer-review from the area. As a piece of research, it's a great political text, but has as much of a scientific basis as, well, the bible really.

 

[BillyTK]

Okay...I agree. Why not?

Because it wouldn't make any difference to inequities across ethnic lines? Adding socio-economic/access factors to AA would make more sense than using those factors alone.

 

[Tmy]

AA was put in place in order to right prior wrongs. These schools DID disrciminate on the basis of color and sex.

As for the Bell Curve, thats been discussed in many threads. My big problem with it: How does one genetically indentify a black person vs a white. These lables tend to be social constructs. Plus, how many people have genetic background that is purely one race?

 

[Genghis Pwn]

AA was put in place in order to right prior wrongs. These schools DID disrciminate on the basis of color and sex.

As for the Bell Curve, thats been discussed in many threads. My big problem with it: How does one genetically indentify a black person vs a white. These lables tend to be social constructs. Plus, how many people have genetic background that is purely one race?

HAhahahaha! And here we have it. Tmy, you are supporting affirmative action on one hand, which requires detailed desciptions of "race" by the colleges and goverment in order to separate those who will benefit from AA and those will not, and then, in the same breath, you are saying races cannot be distinguished from one another in your attempt to badmouth the BELL CURVE. LMAO.

 

[c0rbin]

HAhahahaha! And here we have it. Tmy, you are supporting affirmative action on one hand, which requires detailed desciptions of "race" by the colleges and goverment in order to separate those who will benefit from AA and those will not, and then, in the same breath, you are saying races cannot be distinguished from one another in your attempt to badmouth the BELL CURVE. LMAO.

Actually, one is possibly fiction and the other is absolutely fact.

That people who were darker skinned merely 40 years ago were barred from universities, restaurants, busses, restrooms, voting booths, and life, liberty, and a persuit of happiness is fact.

That you can raise two children, one dark skinned and another light skinned in isolated bubbles and test their I.Q.s or intellect and extrapolate any differences across a population is questionable.

 

[Tmy]

Apples n Oranges.

AA is not about low IQ's. Name a college that accepts students based soley on IQ scores? Or even SAT scores? That'd be so simple. The applications would be 1/2 a page long. Instaed its a long process where they want all sorts of info. Why? because for
various reasons they want various people in their school. Not just a bunch of propeller heads with high SATS.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Spin, corbin, spin.

I think you guys are misunderstanding something: Nobody is questioning the numbers in the BELL CURVE that show whites and asians score higher on IQ and ASVAB tests. No one. Those numbers and test results are clear.

What people attack about the BELL CURVE are some of the ways M&H say IQ effects life, school, and work performance, and how that should or should not social policy. They also question M&H's methods for determining socionomic levels and other factors like that.

There is no doubt whatsoever that whites and asians score higher on IQ tests than blacks.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Apples n Oranges.

AA is not about low IQ's. Name a college that accepts students based soley on IQ scores? Or even SAT scores? That'd be so simple. The applications would be 1/2 a page long. Instaed its a long process where they want all sorts of info. Why? because for
various reasons they want various people in their school. Not just a bunch of propeller heads with high SATS.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about. I called you out because you said there was no such thing as race, while at the same time supporting Affirmative Action for certain "races".

 

[BillyTK]

Spin, corbin, spin.

I think you guys are misunderstanding something: Nobody is questioning the numbers in the BELL CURVE that show whites and asians score higher on IQ and ASVAB tests. No one. Those numbers and test results are clear.

Wrong, wrong wrong! See my post above.

What people attack about the BELL CURVE are some of the ways M&H say IQ effects life, school, and work performance, and how that should or should not social policy. They also question M&H's methods for determining socionomic levels and other factors like that.

There is no doubt whatsoever that whites and asians score higher on IQ tests than blacks.

Here's a precis of why people attack "The Bell Curve"; it's junk science.