science and racism?

[Dancing David]

Must ask!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is the !kung iq test?

The !Kung are also called Kalaharui Bushmen, I assume that all intelligence tests are culturaly biased and that thiers would be very different from the Eurocentric one.

 

[wittgenst3in]

You are dropped into the middle of the Kalahari Desert and are forced to find water and forage for berries and grubs.

I'm taking this way to seriously but...

Just realised, but this probably isn't a true intelligence test. If I remember correctly the tests are not supposed to test your education level, but more your general aptitude for problem solving etc.

Meaning that you wouldn't drop a adult Kalahari bushman that had been specifically trained by the 'tribe'(?) out in the desert, because he's been trained for this specific situation.

On the other hand comparing a Kalahari childs responses compared to another childs responses would be a valid test of KIQ.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I'm taking this way to seriously but...

Just realised, but this probably isn't a true intelligence test. If I remember correctly the tests are not supposed to test your education level, but more your general aptitude for problem solving etc.

Meaning that you wouldn't drop a adult Kalahari bushman that had been specifically trained by the 'tribe'(?) out in the desert, because he's been trained for this specific situation.

On the other hand comparing a Kalahari childs responses compared to another childs responses would be a valid test of KIQ.

No, they don't test your general aptitude for problem solving. They measure your probable performance in school or similar settings. That was the original purpose and Simon and Binet (1905) accomplished that task pretty well.
A number of people, such as Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg, present a strong argument that there is no unified g, but rather a number of different factors involved.
So here's a question.
Washington is to Lincoln as:
a. 1 is to 5
b. 1 is to 16
c. 10 is to 7
d. All of the above

 

[wittgenst3in]

Washington is to Lincoln as:
a. 1 is to 5
b. 1 is to 16
c. 10 is to 7
d. All of the above

A) George is on the $1 bill and Abe is on the $5.
B) George is the 1st prez and Abe is the 16th
C) George's surname takes 10 letters and Abe's takes 7

Therefore D is correct.

/Not even american
(minor googling was required to confirm my suspicians of B and A).

 

[Jeff Corey]

A) George is on the $1 bill and Abe is on the $5.
B) George is the 1st prez and Abe is the 16th
C) George's surname takes 10 letters and Abe's takes 7

Therefore D is correct.

/Not even american
(minor googling was required to confirm my suspicians of B and A).

But you're not allowed to google when you take the test. And it's -25 points for spelling "suspicions" wrong.

 

[Bikewer]

Although Gould-bashing seems to be in vogue currently, one of the more important points of the above-mentioned book was that human intelligence is not something easily classified by a single number.
As I recall, the standard IQ test was developed simply as a diagnostic tool, rather than some sort of defining quantification of intelligence.

From my readings in neuroscience, I believe that the current thinking is that "intelligence" can be subdivided into a number of different skill-sets and abilities, with most folks excelling in some and deficient in others.

 

[bpesta22]

Although Gould-bashing seems to be in vogue currently, one of the more important points of the above-mentioned book was that human intelligence is not something easily classified by a single number.
As I recall, the standard IQ test was developed simply as a diagnostic tool, rather than some sort of defining quantification of intelligence.

From my readings in neuroscience, I believe that the current thinking is that "intelligence" can be subdivided into a number of different skill-sets and abilities, with most folks excelling in some and deficient in others.

.


I'd be willing to buy this, but:

1) why does the single number representing one's IQ predict so many important variables. And, why does the prediction depend critically on how much the single number is a good measure of g.

2) Why is the positive manifold (positive correlations among tests) always found when a group of diverse mental abilities tests is given

I don't claim that g is the only type of intelligence, just that it's the only one that matters when predicting things.

I have a lot of respect for Gould as an evolutionary biologist, but he really should have stuck to what he knows.

 

[bpesta22]

Every important social outcome? They correlate about .2 to .3 with success in a number of different jobs. That's not accounting for much variance.
Wagner, R. K. (1997) Intelligence, training and employment. American Psychologist, 52, 1059-1069

Ok, did some research on this.

First, Wagner's a colleague of Sternberg's at Yale. Go figure, he gets his American Psychologist pub when Sternberg is editor of the journal.

You want to see some crap science, read any Sternberg AP paper on iq.

Anyway, from the article you cite:
Beginning in the 1970s, two developments dramati-
cally changed this picture. First, the development of meta-
analysis, arguably one of the most influential method-
ological developments in recent decades, made it possible
to cumulate quantitatively the results of large numbers
of small-scale studies, resulting in a quasi-massive-scale
study. Second, the results of large-scale studies of mili-
tary personnel and others also became available. The re-
suits of both kinds of studies provided strong evidence
of remarkably general validity for cognitive ability tests
for selection across a broad range of jobs (Hunter &
Schmidt, 1983; McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, &
Ashworth, 1990).


Then, Wagner says:

The average observed validity coefficient or correla-
tion between cognitive ability test scores and job perfor-
mance is between .20 and .30 (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989;
Wigdor & Garner, 1982).

Just two studies cited, neither is a review article, neither is a meta-analysis.

But, then he qualifies:

When observed validity coeffi-
cients are corrected for measurement artifacts such as
restriction of range and measurement error, the average
validity coefficient increases to about the .50 level
(Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Ree & Earles, 1992; Schmidt &
Hunter, in press). A validity coefficient at the .50 level
is an impressive accomplishment.


Then he tries to argue this is an overstatement due to multicolinearity. He cites an in-press article by schmidt and hunter which sorta makes his point.

One year after this article, though, we get

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

They have a table-- I will go through the trouble of posting it here if someone asks-- showing the validity of various selection methods, controlling for other methods. The table also shows how much other methods add to validity over and above IQ.

It's impressive support for using IQ tests for selection.

Further, if you add the cost of an IQ test ($1.72 if bought in bulk) and how long it takes to administer (8 minutes!), hands down IQ is the most useful selection method in existence.

See:

http://www.wonderlic.com/

 

[Bikewer]

I'm not a psychologist, just a police officer with a rather limited time to devote to my "studies".

Still, I'd wonder:

What might be the definition in these studies of "black"?

As has been noted, there is essentially no genetic difference between groups of human beings, who after all comprise but a singe species. Genetic variation within "racial" groups being greater than the differences between them.

"Black" is a term applied to extremely diverse groups of people, and no population on earth could claim to be "pure" in this regard.

Certainly this applies even more so to black people living in the Americas, all of whom would no doubt have in their ethnic background a wide variety of other influences.

So, are we talking about the stereotypical "inner-city" people, the product of poverty, deficient schools, poor nutrition, lead poisoning, etc. etc., or a broader mixture of peoples from a variety of backgrounds and cultural settings?

Could variables in these criteria include culture? I seem to recall that children of Asian descent generally score better than most other groups in a variety of testing. Would we assume a genetic superiority for these children, or perhaps a culture that prizes scholarship and achievment from an early age? (Not to mention culturally-reinforced "filial piety")

Testing human beings is fraught with difficulty, as it's so difficult to control life experiences. Has there been any attempts to study children of caucasian descent living lives of poverty, neglect, poor nutrition, etc? The Appalachias spring to mind, and I believe that there have been a number of studies done, though I couldn't cite sources.

 

[Virgil]

we are all of the human race.



V

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not arguing for the cause of the differences, just that they exist.

You used the word effect in your priot post that would imply that the difference of IQ scores was an effect of the racial difference, perhaps I misread that but I think you used the word effect.

If the question is about race then it would be important to weed out the socio econmic factors associated with poverty.


I dunno what causes them-- it could be lead.

I don't think anyone knows what causes the difference, but it's not cultural bias.

That is the question is it not Hamlet?

A lot of people do believe that because of thier construction IQ tests are culturaly biased.


The tests are race blind in that they predict just as well for minorities as they do for whites.

The last set of correlation I saw were so low that i can't see them being predictors of much, except ability to take IQ test.


I'd submit there's a whole bunch of IQ tests I'd score really poorly on. But, calling it an iq test doesn't make it one. There are issues like reliability and validity that determine if the test indeed measures iq.

Which is why I have argues in the past that the tests need to be redesigned, say for various and targeted skills, work, social, quality of life, the methoid that was used to construct the MMPi could produce a series of quotient test that would probably have a 90% correlation with the target area.


As far as I know, unless the test measures "g", you can call it iq, but it wont predict any important social outcome. On the other hand, if the test measures g, it predicts every important social outcome, and unfortunately produces large race differences.

And is g correlated above the 60% level?

 

[Dancing David]

.


I'd be willing to buy this, but:

1) why does the single number representing one's IQ predict so many important variables. And, why does the prediction depend critically on how much the single number is a good measure of g.

Is that correlation in the high sixties?
Are the predictors subject to the same demographic and cultural bias of the tests?


2) Why is the positive manifold (positive correlations among tests) always found when a group of diverse mental abilities tests is given

How high are these correlations?


I don't claim that g is the only type of intelligence, just that it's the only one that matters when predicting things.

I have a lot of respect for Gould as an evolutionary biologist, but he really should have stuck to what he knows.

If you read Gould you know that he is talking about the Victorian bias of race and it is in context of that, then there is the later stuff about modern mismeasurement.

What are you specificaly taking Gould to task for, have you ever studied anthroplogy/ I suppose you condem anthroplogists for not sharing your views as well?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I saw a test on college students where they looked for some genetic material from a very old specimen (I think one like lucy). They found some caucasion students had more genetic history with an american indian classmate than to each other. They were more related to the indian than to others that "looked" more like themselves.

When you get such a mixture as we are getting in North America, you certainly cannot tell as much with what genes are expressed for looks (eye colore, sking color), than those that you actually carry.

Each individual does not know their whole genetic history either. My son has a "black" great great grandparent. He has blonde hair and hazel eyes. If his dad and I were a one night stand or something like that, I wouldn't know that.

Regionally you may share similar IQs, but that doesn't show your actual dna history either. You can also get a 'black' with a higher IQ than a random Asian.

So no matter what is expressed (intelligence, hair color, foot size), you still have to look at the actual dna history, and that will show we are quite related in ways you'd never think.

Thus, to group people by races or intelligence types, or whatever is missing the point.

You may have more dna in common with the complete stranger 'black' or 'white' or 'indian' guy on the bus than with your "same race" friend. This is because wayyyyy back you could be descended from one common person (Lucy), or two sisters (your direct ancestor being Lucy, and the stranger's direct ancestor being Lucy's sister), or ...and not have a single other direct/indirect ancestor that is related to your friend.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[bpesta22]

If you read Gould you know that he is talking about the Victorian bias of race and it is in context of that, then there is the later stuff about modern mismeasurement.

What are you specificaly taking Gould to task for, have you ever studied anthroplogy/ I suppose you condem anthroplogists for not sharing your views as well?

No, I condemn Gould for setting up a huge strawman, and presenting decades old research as if it were mainstream science, and for not understanding factor analysis, and then blaming those who use it.

Search Arthur Jensen replies to S. J. Gould-- it's an interesting read.

Why do you insist a correlation must be in the high .60 to have practical value.

search utility, IQ and job selection -- you'd be surprised the $$$ that even very low validities could save a company for use in selection.

The MMPI empirical keying method might work at identifying high IQ people. But since g is already reliabily and validly measured, I bet the MMPI scale would create adverse impact too.

You can devise all these domain specific tests, and if they're done right, they will be valid predictors of whatever specific skill or ability it is you want tested. However, are these tests worth the time and expense (you need one test for each skill you measure) when $1.76 and 8 minutes gives you premium validity?

Also, of all domain specific abilities ever measured, none predict success as well as (most even at all, when controlling for) g.

 

[bpesta22]

I saw a test on college students where they looked for some genetic material from a very old specimen (I think one like lucy). They found some caucasion students had more genetic history with an american indian classmate than to each other. They were more related to the indian than to others that "looked" more like themselves.

When you get such a mixture as we are getting in North America, you certainly cannot tell as much with what genes are expressed for looks (eye colore, sking color), than those that you actually carry.

Each individual does not know their whole genetic history either. My son has a "black" great great grandparent. He has blonde hair and hazel eyes. If his dad and I were a one night stand or something like that, I wouldn't know that.

Regionally you may share similar IQs, but that doesn't show your actual dna history either. You can also get a 'black' with a higher IQ than a random Asian.

So no matter what is expressed (intelligence, hair color, foot size), you still have to look at the actual dna history, and that will show we are quite related in ways you'd never think.

Thus, to group people by races or intelligence types, or whatever is missing the point.

You may have more dna in common with the complete stranger 'black' or 'white' or 'indian' guy on the bus than with your "same race" friend. This is because wayyyyy back you could be descended from one common person (Lucy), or two sisters (your direct ancestor being Lucy, and the stranger's direct ancestor being Lucy's sister), or ...and not have a single other direct/indirect ancestor that is related to your friend.

I hope this makes sense.

Line me up 10000 randomly selected americans. I will group them by eyeball according to race. Give them all a g loaded IQ test, and you will get these "race" differences we're talking about here.

I'd bet my life on it!

 

[Dancing David]

No, I condemn Gould for setting up a huge strawman, and presenting decades old research as if it were mainstream science, and for not understanding factor analysis, and then blaming those who use it.

Search Arthur Jensen replies to S. J. Gould-- it's an interesting read.

Why do you insist a correlation must be in the high .60 to have practical value.

search utility, IQ and job selection -- you'd be surprised the $$$ that even very low validities could save a company for use in selection.

The MMPI empirical keying method might work at identifying high IQ people. But since g is already reliabily and validly measured, I bet the MMPI scale would create adverse impact too.

You can devise all these domain specific tests, and if they're done right, they will be valid predictors of whatever specific skill or ability it is you want tested. However, are these tests worth the time and expense (you need one test for each skill you measure) when $1.76 and 8 minutes gives you premium validity?

Also, of all domain specific abilities ever measured, none predict success as well as (most even at all, when controlling for) g.

Well I suppose we will agree to disagree then for I find correlations below that level to be unindicative and the fact that the IQ test exists does not mean a better one could not be devised.

I was just using the MMPi as an example of how a useful tool could be contructed post hoc, but I rant even more about how useless the MMPi is that I do the IQ score.

Best wishes and fare thee well.

 

[Dancing David]

The Khe San in southern africa are 'caucasian' in morphology yet most ceratinly 'black' in heritage, how does one classify them then?

I thought I read recently that rural white students preform as poorly as urban black students in standardized tests, hmm what would that indicate?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Line me up 10000 randomly selected americans. I will group them by eyeball according to race. Give them all a g loaded IQ test, and you will get these "race" differences we're talking about here.

I'd bet my life on it!

Yes, but we're missing the point again. Certain traits from geological clustering does not change the fundamental story our dna can tell us about ourselves and where we came from, and how we are actually related.

It doesn't matter what "race" we are, it doesn't change the answer to the original question posed by Ixabert.

Ixabert needs to show that race doesn't matter, and it doesn't. DNA is not the only reason for how intelligent a person ends up looking on an IQ test. We all know that.

 

[American]

I am searching for info disproving anti-black racism.

That's how I do science. I don't investigate reality- I set out to prove things, no matter how ridiculous or misleading, and with total disregard for social consequences.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Re: Re: science and racism?

That's how I do science. I don't investigate reality- I set out to prove things, no matter how ridiculous or misleading, and with total disregard for social consequences.

Showing that you should not discriminate against others just because they have a different skin color is not ridiculous, misleading, or having a total disregard for social consequences.

Reality is that we can be more related to someone with a different skin color than someone with the same skin color in many cases.