Don’t know what this means, and in any case I haven’t said it.
That is categorically not my position. I’ve never said black people are unable to learn. That would be an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
You’re the one misstating over and over again here.
Obviously your opinion on this doesn’t matter to me. Your genetic explanation is bullshit. It doesn’t fit the fact.
In the US? Probably not. More black kids (proportionally) live in cities; there are more basketball courts in cities; so more black kids, proportionally speaking, grow up around basketball courts and can walk to basketball courts.
I imagine there are many “nurturing environment” differences with regards to basketball, just like for academics. Black parents may be more likely to encourage basketball than white parents, for example.
In basketball, the selection process is probably mostly fair and based on ability.
Novak Djokovic, had he grown up playing basketball, would probably be a terrific player in the NBA. Had Michael Jordan grown up playing tennis, he probably would have won multiple majors.
There was a cool study done on the impact of motivation on IQ test results. They administered IQ tests to a bunch of children, then took the group of children who overall scored one standard deviation below average and offered them a piece of chocolate for each right answer they got if they took the test again. Their average score jumped by 15 points, so that their average score rose from one standard deviation below average to average. Edit: this relates because black children are under-compensated for academic achievement due to prejudice, and therefore could be compared to unmotivated test takers.
It’s astonishing to me that the centuries old history of enslavement and subjugation of black Americans and the ongoing societal discrimination against them is being labeled as a “soft” cultural factor.
Interesting stuff. Do you have a link? I’d be curious if they also offered the higher-scoring students the same deal afterwards to see if their scores increased as well.
Let’s be clear here. I’m calling you a racist because you’re a racist. The beliefs you just described have no scientific validity - as has been explained to you repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere. You cling to these false beliefs and claim there is truth in them because you are a racist.
In any debate over any issue, people assign greater weight and value to things that support their side, while assigning lesser weight and value to things that support the other side.
And while searching for that I found this, which says that the entire black/white IQ gap can be eliminated if the black test takers are offered one M&M per correct answer. Not sure what the primary source is for that though.
I’m trying to figure out how the sort of “racism” you find so prevalent prevents a wealthy and privileged black student with educated parents from getting more answers correct when he’s had a privileged educational experience than a poverty stricken white student with uneducated parents when he’s had a crappy educational experience.
What, exactly, happens, in your mind to make the student get those answers wrong?
Very cool, and I’d be happy to institute a program of chocolate bar distribution to all students whose academic performance is chocolate bar dependent. And frankly, I hope the dearth of chocolate bars is all that is preventing black students with privileged backgrounds from getting MCATS on par with their SES peers. I think this would be Federal money well spent; heck, I’d even step up to fund one Snickers per exam. Or maybe just email the wealthy black parents that can get rid of the pernicious effect of racism which is making their kids get test answers wrong by bribing them with a Mounds bar before each exam.
But I’m not sure even the Feds could be persuaded not to confuse nonsense with substance. Maybe we could persuade the study author to put this sort of crap to a real life test and finally fix that stubborn score gap?
How can you not be embarrassed to post this sort of baloney?
It’s astonishing to me that any ancestral oppression would be advanced for a reason that a currently privileged child gets answers wrong on a test.
I just don’t get the connection, having interviewed dozens of prospective applicants whose parents–much less ancestors–had horrible stories. But when those students had the chance to learn, they learned; when they had a chance to take an exam, they performed according to the opportunity they had had to learn. What happened to their parents and ancestors had no effect on putting down the correct answer to an exam question.
This is not that hard to imagine. They have different interactions that might be discriminatory, oppressive, dehumanizing, etc. They see different media depictions of people that look like themselves, and different media stereotypes and role models. Their teachers have different expectations. There are probably many other different possibilities.
In short, in America, the ‘black experience’, regardless of wealth, is often significantly different than other experiences.
The reason I ask the question has to do with the where the threshold is for accepting evidence and/or proof. I’d say my feelings are similar to yours and Little Nemo’s. But the point is that without identifying “the gay gene”, everyone was fine looking at evidence that pointed to the cause being genetic. No doubt that some people even went too far and pretty much concluded that the cause was genetic. Some in part, some in full. I’m sure some of the thinking was biased, but most was probably not. Regardless, people were able to have intelligent discussions fro many, many years without “the gay gene” ever being identified. As I said, I have zero problem with any of that.
It strikes me that we have a parallel here with the reality of the situation, but not with how the discussion is allowed to progress. Mind you, I’m not saying that the case for intelligence is even near as compelling as that for homosexuality, but there is evidence. Identifying the gene would be proof. But some in the discussion (and I forget if you feel this way or not) think the only evidence that would be strong enough to warrant a discussion of race and intelligence is the identification of the gene.
So, there seems to be an inconsistency that, to me, aligns with what the left (and this board) hope will be an outcome. If homosexuality was simply a choice, then that wouldn’t bode as well for gay rights. Here there is a strong desire that any difference in intelligence based on race will be able to be attributed to nurture, environment, etc.
Regardless of the bias involved that might align with a politic faction, it seems to me that trying to shame scientists into not looking into something by calling them, or their hypotheses or actions, racist, fights directly with science and the spirit of dispassionate inquiry.
I can’t agree with this. As I said above, I don’t feel there is a clear consensus among knowledgeable scientists on the genetic origins of sexual preferences.
But this is not the case with race and intelligence. The consensus on that is clear. Orcenio started a recent thread in which he links to numerous cites from scientists affirming that every credible scientist agrees there is no genetic link between race and intelligence.
People claiming there is still legitimate dispute on this issue are like people claiming there is still legitimate dispute on whether smoking is bad for your health. The train has not only left the station - it’s traveled several hundred miles down the track.
I see what you’re saying and kind of agree. I thought I made it clear that I don’t think that the levels of evidence are similar. They’re not even close. My only point is that people were and are able to argue that homosexuality is, at least in part, genetic. Without any gene being found. That is still the case today, even with no gay gene being identified.
Personally, I feel that there is a genetic component, not that it accounts for all homosexuality. I see there is evidence that race MAY have a genetic component. Counter evidence does not end the debate for me, and I am unpersuaded by “experts in the field” when it comes to socially sensitive issues that come prepackaged with ideology. Climate change is a similar issue for me. I believe it to be a fact, but it has turned into a religion. One that has no tolerance for the unbelievers. I think science is no place for that. Someone who questions any part of climate change doctrine, as preached by some on this board, is labeled a “denier”. Now, someone who looks at the evidence indicating that there MAY be a genetic component to intelligence needs to be labeled a “racist”.