bpesta22
Cereal Killer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 4,942
Eos of the Eons said:
But, it does matter-- we just dont know why.
For some reason, races score differently on iq tests-- tests which predict at the group level important social outcomes.
ASAIK, so many studies have been done controlling for this that and the other thing in the environment, only to find the race difference is still there.
I'll have to dig up the cite, but when you match blacks and whites on income levels and parent's education, the race difference is actually largest at the wealthy end of the comparison!
I honestly don't believe i am a racist. But just ignoring 80 years of data by saying the tests are biased, or it's the "envionment," seems intellectually dishonest.
These data piss people off, and they should. But, if the science werent there to back it up, we wouldn't be using iq tests today-- for sure, there's no way the courts would allow companies to use iq tests in selection-- when those tests exclude proportionately more minorities from being hired-- if they weren't well validated and cultually fair.
We all have differing levels of knowledge and expertise in this area, but ask yourself: Would our federal court system, and the teeth of the EEOC (see that 24 million dollar sexual harassment verdict in the news lately) ever allow a firm to use an IQ test for selection-- thereby legally discriminating against minorities, if 1) the test wasn't valid, or 2) the test showed intercept or slope bias against minorities.
There's a famous statistician named Cohen who has guidelines for how to interpret effect sizes. Note, he does no research on IQ, these are guidelines for effects in any area:
.2 = small
.4 = medium
.6 = large.
He doesn't even have a label for 1.0, which must therefore be HUGE!
(sigh)
This is one of the "factoids" that are often presented in favor of a "huge" difference between blacks and whites in IQ, but it shows more of the ignorance of those who promote it.
When a statistician says that a certain difference is "large" as opposed to "small", he means something like "a difference this size between populations is easily detected even with a relatively small sample from the two populations." It does NOT mean that the effect is absolutely "large" in terms of actual units (as opposed to SDs), let alone that whatever difference exists is of any practical importance.
For instance, suppose that every single white person had an IQ of exactly 100, and every single black person had an IQ of exactly 99. Mathematically speaking, the difference between the two is not 1, or 10, but literally an infinite number of standard deviations (since the SD of both populations is exactly 0). This is, indeed, a "huge" difference for a statistician, in the sense that there is an absolute, 1:1, correlation between race and IQ in this case: one's race totally determines what one's IQ is. So? It would still be still a tiny difference both absolutely (one IQ point) and practically (in terms of differences in "real life" performance).
The one SD difference in IQ, even if real--which is doubtful--might be "huge" in Cohen's statistical sense and still "tiny" or "insignificant" in any practical sense, in the same way that an EXTRA LARGE coke bottle can fit in a SMALL refrigirator. (mis)quoting Cohen in this way is merely using words from one context in another context, with the clear intent of making the IQ difference between blacks and white look as "important" as possible.
.2 = small
.4 = medium
.6 = large.
He doesn't even have a label for 1.0, which must therefore be HUGE!
(sigh)
This is one of the "factoids" that are often presented in favor of a "huge" difference between blacks and whites in IQ, but it shows more of the ignorance of those who promote it.
When a statistician says that a certain difference is "large" as opposed to "small", he means something like "a difference this size between populations is easily detected even with a relatively small sample from the two populations." It does NOT mean that the effect is absolutely "large" in terms of actual units (as opposed to SDs), let alone that whatever difference exists is of any practical importance.
For instance, suppose that every single white person had an IQ of exactly 100, and every single black person had an IQ of exactly 99. Mathematically speaking, the difference between the two is not 1, or 10, but literally an infinite number of standard deviations (since the SD of both populations is exactly 0). This is, indeed, a "huge" difference for a statistician, in the sense that there is an absolute, 1:1, correlation between race and IQ in this case: one's race totally determines what one's IQ is. So? It would still be still a tiny difference both absolutely (one IQ point) and practically (in terms of differences in "real life" performance).
The one SD difference in IQ, even if real--which is doubtful--might be "huge" in Cohen's statistical sense and still "tiny" or "insignificant" in any practical sense, in the same way that an EXTRA LARGE coke bottle can fit in a SMALL refrigirator. (mis)quoting Cohen in this way is merely using words from one context in another context, with the clear intent of making the IQ difference between blacks and white look as "important" as possible.
Re: Re: Re: science and racism?
There's no should or should not about it, unless you define your motivations, which we haven't. The things you mention are a matter of opinion and individual values, not the realm of science.
All of this pre-supposes that today's psychology or sociology are valid sciences, which I say that they aren't, rather it's all political BS. So our arguing can go nowhere, and I will let you have the last word if you wish.
Eos of the Eons said:
There's no should or should not about it, unless you define your motivations, which we haven't. The things you mention are a matter of opinion and individual values, not the realm of science.
All of this pre-supposes that today's psychology or sociology are valid sciences, which I say that they aren't, rather it's all political BS. So our arguing can go nowhere, and I will let you have the last word if you wish.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
Oh bother, I was hoping you misunderstood, but not really. Thing is, we are using science, and science has shown that outter traits matter less when it comes down to who you are actually related to.
A really dumb person can be related to a really smart one. A black person can be related to a white one. When you hate one race or another, you are hating people you are/could be directly related to.
The dna test showed the caucasion in the class was more related to an american indian than another caucasion. That is science, not opinion.
Intelligence and skin color can cluster in areas because of the environmental stresses that push evolution one way or another. I have agreed with Pesta, showing why. Thing is, it doesn't matter. You can group people by skin color, and IQ test scores, etc. That doesn't make you any less related.
When you group people by actual inheritance, you find a mosaic, and you find that it is essential to have different traits in order to ensure survival.
So some folks don't do as well on IQ tests, but they'll whip your butt in a foot race. Or they will have less instances of skin cancer.
You are lumping people by traits. When it comes to genetics though, it's the group of traits that matters and who you are related to. The group of traits will matter when it comes to survival. Who you are related to doesn't really matter, but it shows you never know who you are more related to.
Point being, there is value to differences, and value to recognizing those differences are minor in the "big picture".
There is a story that I don't know is true. There was this racist who found out he had a disease. Turns out that only "black" people got the disease, so it turned out he was closely descended enough to a black person to have the trait expressed in his genome. He didn't look black, but he was racist against his own relatives.
Thing is, we do know that humanity started in Africa, and we ALL have common ancestors. Heck, we even have a common ancestor that also evolved into the great apes, and before that...
So a racist is an idiot if he thinks one 'race' isn't as good as another because of certain expressed traits.
Did you know that if someone with darker skin moves from a hot area to a cooler one, they can suffer because they don't get as much sun exposure? White folks can handle less sun better.
So we get adapted to each region we live in since people with certain traits will survive better in certain regions and pass those traits along. You can be a smart white guy, and still die of skin cancer before passing on your genes.
So again, I will say it does not matter if more black guys don't do as well on an IQ test as the white guys. They have other advantages. Those advantages are just as valuable.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, I've even agreed, but the original question is answered. Race doesn't matter when it comes to survival. We have to value differences. At any certain time those difference may be what keeps us from going extinct. One 'race' (or set of traits) is not better than another overall.
A really dumb person can be related to a really smart one. A black person can be related to a white one. When you hate one race or another, you are hating people you are/could be directly related to.
The dna test showed the caucasion in the class was more related to an american indian than another caucasion. That is science, not opinion.
Intelligence and skin color can cluster in areas because of the environmental stresses that push evolution one way or another. I have agreed with Pesta, showing why. Thing is, it doesn't matter. You can group people by skin color, and IQ test scores, etc. That doesn't make you any less related.
When you group people by actual inheritance, you find a mosaic, and you find that it is essential to have different traits in order to ensure survival.
So some folks don't do as well on IQ tests, but they'll whip your butt in a foot race. Or they will have less instances of skin cancer.
You are lumping people by traits. When it comes to genetics though, it's the group of traits that matters and who you are related to. The group of traits will matter when it comes to survival. Who you are related to doesn't really matter, but it shows you never know who you are more related to.
Point being, there is value to differences, and value to recognizing those differences are minor in the "big picture".
There is a story that I don't know is true. There was this racist who found out he had a disease. Turns out that only "black" people got the disease, so it turned out he was closely descended enough to a black person to have the trait expressed in his genome. He didn't look black, but he was racist against his own relatives.
Thing is, we do know that humanity started in Africa, and we ALL have common ancestors. Heck, we even have a common ancestor that also evolved into the great apes, and before that...
So a racist is an idiot if he thinks one 'race' isn't as good as another because of certain expressed traits.
Did you know that if someone with darker skin moves from a hot area to a cooler one, they can suffer because they don't get as much sun exposure? White folks can handle less sun better.
So we get adapted to each region we live in since people with certain traits will survive better in certain regions and pass those traits along. You can be a smart white guy, and still die of skin cancer before passing on your genes.
So again, I will say it does not matter if more black guys don't do as well on an IQ test as the white guys. They have other advantages. Those advantages are just as valuable.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, I've even agreed, but the original question is answered. Race doesn't matter when it comes to survival. We have to value differences. At any certain time those difference may be what keeps us from going extinct. One 'race' (or set of traits) is not better than another overall.
Eos of the Eons said:
That's like saying I must like Vanilla Coke even though it's not REAL Coke, and if I don't then I'm a racist for preferring real regular Coke which is almost the same thing as the Vanilla flavor.
Look Jack- I don't have to like what I drink, and I ain't a racist because of it.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
American, nobody is accusing you of being racist. I think you kinda get my point in a backwards way. Pop is pop, and people are gonna like different flavors. Doesn't make one flavor the best, and therefore 'superior'. Right? Variety is the spice of life, afterall. Just don't hate ginger ale for being so pale! My watergate cake wouldn't be the same without it!
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 4,942
Skeptic said:
Skeptic.
I believe cohen's intent in suggesting those guidelines was to do precisely what you claim is ignorant-- to have some guideline for determining when an effect size has practical value / is large in the "sense" I've been talking about.
In fact, the effect size removes one big problem with p values-- they correlate with sample size. So, like your example above, you could have "highly significant" results, but the effect size is so small the results have NO practical value.
See cohen's example on the "significant" relationship between height and IQ in kids. This correlation really exists! But it has no practical value-- raising a kid's iq 30 points would require we increase his/her height by something like 12 feet!
Here are the facts (I'll back them with cites if you require) you tell me whether the black / white mean IQ difference has any practical significance:
1) Replicated since WW I, in literally 100's (if not 1000s) of studies, the black mean is around 85, the white mean is 100.
2) Since the standard deviation of an IQ test is 15, the effect size (d) is 1.0
Based on the effect size of 1.0, we know:
3) About 84% of blacks score below the white mean (100) on an IQ test. Only about 2% of blacks score 115 or higher on an IQ test.
4) Given the above effect size, pick any important variable that correlates with IQ. E.g., suppose we pick job performance, which correlates .5 with IQ.
Suppose we set the cutoff score for selection at 115, one standard deviation above the IQ grand mean.
We'd hire about 16% of the white applicants, but only about 2% of the black applicants. Extreme adverse impact.
Would it be legal? Yes, because the test is a valid predictor of job performance for both whites and blacks.
So, here you have a situation where the effect you imply is tiny (and that I am ignorant for suggesting otherwise) results in a bias such that 8 times as many whites (proportionally) are hired over blacks.
Yeah, this is a trivial effect.
Now, substitute job performance for graduate GPA (another correlation around .5). So, why is it we need affirmative action for minorities if we want them fairly represented in higher education?
Then substitute job performance for income (a smaller correlation of .30). 10% of the variance in how much money you make is determined by your IQ. Factor in the race difference and tell me an effect size of 1.0 is trivial.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Re: Re: Re: Re: science and racism?
Some is science some is not, it's a lot like econmics and finance, some is research some is unsupported theory.
American said:
Some is science some is not, it's a lot like econmics and finance, some is research some is unsupported theory.
Beausoleil
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2003
- Messages
- 237
bpesta22 said:
Given the other evidence in this thread about how mixed up genetic heritage is, all this would demonstrate is that the effect is not genetic.
You comment about being a predictor within minorities therefore differences between minorities are valid is a well known fallacy, isn't it?
If I organise two foot races, one normal and one with each participant carrying a sack of coal, physical fitness will be a good predictor of who wins each race, but of no use in explaining the average difference in times between the two events.
bpesta22
Cereal Killer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 4,942
Beausoleil said:
I dont quarrel with most of what you say here.....perhaps I wasnt clear.
I meant: if you look at just a sample of blacks, and use IQ to predict success, you get the same validity coefficient as in the white group.
There is no underprediction for blacks. The tests predict just as well for blacks as they do whites. So much so, the US courts ok use of the tests for selection, even though they discriminate against blacks.
Everyone has an opinion on this one way or another, which is fine-- but, i've asked this question a few times without any answer:
If IQ tests are such evil worthless instruments of racism, why does our court system let them be used for selection?
Even worse-- why has the concept of validity generalization for IQ tests been established in case law (the idea that the evidence for the validity of IQ is so overwhelming that a company today does NOT have to waste money validating it's IQ test)?
**
Re: the fallacy.
If I implied that because within groups, IQ is largely genetic, that therefore the between group difference is too, I didn't mean too.
If instead, you're arguing that the difference doesn't even exist, I'd recommend doing some research. It's not an opinion really. The difference is real. What causes it is what's being debated.
I personally believe the difference is biological. Whether genetic or environmentallly caused, I dunno.
But, that's my opinion, and we know what them are worth.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
Sure they're biological, I think my posts have been arguing that all along.
The initial question was about grouping people based on certain traits and then making even further generalizations from there, that racists do. Racists don't have a leg to stand on. Sure, one group will show more of one trait, but racists don't realize how much the same we all are when it comes to where we came from in the first place. Not one trait is worth more when it comes to survival of the species. Racists argue the opposite. They also mix in paranoia and a few other disgusting ideas into it.
Intelligence is a trait of potential, and your offspring can evolve more intelligence, or less, depending on the environmental stressors. If things are easy, you'll find people with less intelligence surviving. Then if something happens that requires more intelligence to survive, you'll see a group getting more intelligent over time...a long time.
We also know intelligence can be affected by environment when a person is developing. A child exposed to alcohol in the womb can end up with FAS. Or malnutrition can affect it. Or maybe a child wasn't stimulated enough in certain ways when growing up. Disease can even affect the brain (encephalitus).
You also have to keep the individual in mind. There is that odd one that stands out, and we can then see why you can end up with a whole group standing out if those traits are desirable or beneficial. The odd one can be one that survives a disease, or has better vision, or does have more intelligence due to his dna. This all would be due to dna.
Racists don't appreciate that we need genetic diversity as a species. They are uneducated and close minded.
I think we've lost the thread starter here! I'm wondering if anything in this thread has helped him.
The initial question was about grouping people based on certain traits and then making even further generalizations from there, that racists do. Racists don't have a leg to stand on. Sure, one group will show more of one trait, but racists don't realize how much the same we all are when it comes to where we came from in the first place. Not one trait is worth more when it comes to survival of the species. Racists argue the opposite. They also mix in paranoia and a few other disgusting ideas into it.
Intelligence is a trait of potential, and your offspring can evolve more intelligence, or less, depending on the environmental stressors. If things are easy, you'll find people with less intelligence surviving. Then if something happens that requires more intelligence to survive, you'll see a group getting more intelligent over time...a long time.
We also know intelligence can be affected by environment when a person is developing. A child exposed to alcohol in the womb can end up with FAS. Or malnutrition can affect it. Or maybe a child wasn't stimulated enough in certain ways when growing up. Disease can even affect the brain (encephalitus).
You also have to keep the individual in mind. There is that odd one that stands out, and we can then see why you can end up with a whole group standing out if those traits are desirable or beneficial. The odd one can be one that survives a disease, or has better vision, or does have more intelligence due to his dna. This all would be due to dna.
Racists don't appreciate that we need genetic diversity as a species. They are uneducated and close minded.
I think we've lost the thread starter here! I'm wondering if anything in this thread has helped him.
Blacks tend to have a different culture. How much does culture affect IQ?
Blacks tend to be poorer. How does this affect diet, education and other environmental issues that can affect IQ?
People have tried to factor out these issues but there is one that is almost impossible to get rid of:
Blacks tend to have been in the womb of a poorer woman with a greater likelihood of drug use, poorer nutrition, worse environment, lack of prenatal visits and higher chance of cigarette smoking. How does this affect IQ?
CBL
Blacks tend to be poorer. How does this affect diet, education and other environmental issues that can affect IQ?
People have tried to factor out these issues but there is one that is almost impossible to get rid of:
Blacks tend to have been in the womb of a poorer woman with a greater likelihood of drug use, poorer nutrition, worse environment, lack of prenatal visits and higher chance of cigarette smoking. How does this affect IQ?
CBL