So it is a conspiracy :rolleyes:; not a surprise, beside a lack of getting humour the Chief is also only showing how common is for the followers of a conspiracy theory to follow more than one. A perfect example of Crank magnetism.
Except the part where blacks with very high black socioeconomic status substantially underscore whites with very low socioeconomic status.
Read the contorted study you just presented, and then look at the actual data.
Assorted statistical machinations are lots of fun, as is the conclusion your authors present above.
Unfortunately, those who buy into that sort of silliness get slapped in the face by reality.
From the above cite:
*Explaining the Black-White SAT Gap
There are a number of reasons that are being advanced to explain the continuing and growing black-white SAT scoring gap. Sharp differences in family incomes are a major factor. Always there has been a direct correlation between family income and SAT scores. For both blacks and whites, as income goes up, so do test scores. In 2005, 28 percent of all black SAT test takers were from families with annual incomes below $20,000. Only 5 percent of white test takers were from families with incomes below $20,000. At the other extreme, 7 percent of all black test takers were from families with incomes of more than $100,000. The comparable figure for white test takers is 27 percent.
But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board’s 2005 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.*
Here’s what I mean when I say socioeconomic status does not explain this gap:
Socioeconomic status does not explain this gap.
I recommend some independent reading beyond a Wikipedia summary.
You will find no dearth of folks eager to wordsmith phrases like no “compelling genetic link…” “at this time.” “Almost no genetic polymorphisms…” and so on.
You’ll find folks who insist, without citing a single study such as the one I just cited from the JBHE where high SES on the part of blacks does not overcome low scores, that you can explaing “the entire IQ gap with environmental factors” (which ones, again?) and you’ll find plenty of folks who cite “admixture studies” without remembering to mention that these are not even done using modern genetic tools because they are too inflammatory. For example, the one iiandyiiii likes to cite is 50 years old, used skin color as a proxy for admixture degree, and used cohorts already drawn from a tier so low that snack bribes were used to encourage participation.
Try to get beyond wordsmithing and Wikipedia.
It tells us that folks who think there is “zero evidence” for a genetic factor must think that mother nature exempts genes for neurobiological function from evolution. Otherwise, genes are a very good explanation for differences we see for things like creatine kinase, (even if we didn’t know the exact gene) but not a good evidence for wealthy and educated blacks underscoring their socioeconomic peers in such a stubbornly consistent pattern across the entire world.
The same source you use does mention later that there is evidence why, and one should notice that the context of the study you quote is that "Public schools in many neighborhoods with large black populations are underfunded, inadequately staffed, and ill equipped to provide the same quality of secondary education that is offered in predominantly white suburban school districts. "
It is not a “conspiracy,” Mr Strawman, but it is a cold reality of academic life that advancing a position which proposes functionally significant biological differences among races is not a way to advance a career.
It’s much easier to simply wordsmith an answer to appeal to the masses and then turn one’s career elsewhere.
When Bruce Lahn, for example, made the mistake of promoting his research into the reason and potential ramifications that MCPH1 haplogroup D is so widely penetrated into eurasian but not sub-saharan groups, he was rather quickly persuaded to find other pursuits. We don’t like doing research or drawing conclusions that have very inflammatory and sensitive conclusions.
No IRB would fund a study looking at the genetic basis for intelligence among races. The Princeton Review I cited earlier on the genes for neurobiology spends some time discussing the ethical implications of any such delineation. Were we all drawing from the same geneset, or were there no chance of it turning out that our different race groupings create different skillset abilities, then of course there would be no “ethical implications” of studying geneset differences that drive neurobiology.
GIGObuster, you dimwit; there is no controversy around the idea that low socioeconomic strata use crappier schools (although of course even within those crappier schools, the same general order of outcomes exist, with asians on top, whites next, and blacks at the bottom).
The notion that upper middle class blacks are turning in shitty scores compared with the lowest tier white students because the upper middle class blacks are going to crappy schools is ridiculous. I can tell you as an educator sitting on an admissions committee to med school that it’s a canard to advance that idea. The JBHE article has quite a few reasons, none of which hold water, but you can review them here and advance them if you like.
The highest scoring black students come from high SES backgrounds and their educated, wealthy parents are plenty savvy enough and wealthy enough to get them superb schools. They are not sending them to some half-assed inner city lame-o school staffed by incompetent teachers. Moreover, those same students, when matriculated into good colleges, get exactly the same educational opportunity as everyone else and still have horribly inferior graduate test scores (MCAT, LSAT and the like).
Of course your dimwitness is clear, the source I used was the JBHE too, only that it is a more recent one, what you miss is what is called the “march of science”
Cranky uh? 
Doubling down on that conspiracy is why you are not being taken seriously, and also dismissed by a real Biologist like Colibri too.
Except…it doesn’t. Skin colour, of all the phenotypic points traditionally assigned to “races”, is one we can all-too-easily show is an environmental response, not a by-continent-of-recent-origin clustering
Is it bleedingly obvious to everyone else that Chief seems to have learned a new word this last week, that he’s going to shoehorn into every post?
It’s not a “stubbornly consistent pattern”, so you’re very wrong.
Right – I agree with this. I just mean that some groups might have, on average, genes for darker skin than other groups, not that these groups are biological races (or that there is such a thing). I know that many, many dark skinned groups are not “black” or of African descent.
Do enlighten us in which situation, under which system, anywhere in the world now or in world history, blacks rank at the top of the intellectual elite for a mixed population and other races at the bottom.
GIGObuster you dimwit; if SES does not explain the marked score gap, it does not explain the marked score gap.
What “march of science” has shown that, if SES is accounted for, scores gaps disappear?
As I have pointed out ad nausem here, the fact that SES equivalence does not produce performance equivalence is the greatest challenge facing educators and race-based AA today.
A new cite reciting the same old tired notion that black academic underperformance might be related to crappier schools is not a “march of science,” whatever that is.
Today, in the US and every other nation, blacks given the same SES opportunity significantly underscore their SES peers.
Why don’t you try marching off to the reading room for data, and the learning room for independent thinking, and get away from the idea that quoting someone you hope is an expert adds anything if their data is incorrect.
We have no decent records for more than the last few decades, but I imagine that when the black Nubians dominated Egypt, black people were well-represented (and likely over-represented, as is usually the case when one group dominates politically) in the top of the Egyptian intellectual elite. The Ethiopian Empire and Mali Empire, which at times ruled over various ethnic groups, likely had well-represented black elites. Same goes for the Kanem Empire, which stretched from Chad and Nigeria up to Libya.
This does nothing to support the genetic explanation, and only shows that SES is not responsible for the entire gap.
A typical example of what iiandyiiii apparently labels “zero evidence” for genes might be found here.
We observe an outcome difference in self-identified races, but since we can’t identify the exact gene, there is “zero evidence” the problem is genetic.
Oh, I’m sure someone’s going to do a definitive admixture study within a few years. If not here, then in China. Then we’ll finally have an answer.
Since I’m having trouble getting the SES admission problem penetrated through your cranium, I’ll let the JBHE explain it:
*"Income-Based Affirmative Action Will Do Almost Nothing to Produce Greater Racial Diversity in Public Schools or in Colleges and Universities
According to statistics supplied to JBHE by The College Board, college-bound white students from families with low incomes score considerably higher than college-bound blacks from families with low incomes. For example, for white students from families with incomes below $10,000, the median SAT score in 2006 was 488 on the critical reading portion of the test and 505 on the math portion. For blacks from families with incomes below $10,000, the median SAT score was 398 on the verbal portion and 395 on the math. A similar 90 to 110 point gap occurs at other low-income levels such as those for families with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 and for families with incomes ranging from $20,000 to $30,000. In fact, the SAT score gap between blacks and whites in the lower-income brackets mirrors the gap for the test-taking population as a whole.
Therefore, if college admissions officials were to shift affirmative action or preferential admissions programs to a system based on socioeconomic status and give preference to students from families from these lower-income brackets without regard to race, it appears that white students — based on their significantly higher test scores at all income levels — would continue to hold a huge admission advantage over black students."*
Hope this helps you figure out where science is marching.