Are you genuinely this stupid? Is this really what you took away from the study? Maybe try responding again, and this time try removing head from anus first?
I look forward to your intelligent and well-thought-out response to the research outlined here, and if this is genuinely the best you can do, then I’ve been spending too much time attempting to communicate with you and not enough time calling you a stupid fucking asshole.
Or alternatively, that chocolate modifies black DNA in such a way as to temporarily eliminate the “blacks iz stupid” gene.
Too bad that what you have there are also boiler plate accusations that pseudo scientists make when they are not getting their way.
Some prefer to get their lousy misleading opinions on the issue at hand from sources like V-DARE and discredited and misleading research. And on the climate change front to rely on denier sources that claim to be original but they are just copycats of the same denial tactics that come from the Tobacco companies.
Me and many others prefer to look at sources that do work or teach in the area of biology, genetics and anthropology on this issue. And to NOAA, NASA and the MET Office for climate change.
Pretending that those pro or con sources are the same in an ongoing controversy is bananas and just pushing a false balance.
One more thing: The reality is that the ones using religion are denier scientists and congresscritters, and they use religion as a way to mislead more.
In the “blacks are inferior” front we should never forget how religion was also a big factor in justifying slavery and then lots of racism and prejudice against the former slaves.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homchurchg1.htm
It is getting better, but there are still a few religious leaders that are not helping to make a more just society.
There is no ‘evidence’ that blacks have inferior genes for intelligence doesn’t also point to other possible causes for the test-score gap, like the possibility that day-to-day discrimination, media depictions, and other legacies of oppression decrease a test-taker’s performance. Further, there is specific evidence that refutes the genetic explanation. That’s why I’m comfortable saying there’s no evidence for the genetic explanation.
I’m find with discussions. But I’m not fine with racist assertions that do not fit the facts. I’m happy to call them out on the racism of the assertion, and the poor quality of the science.
I think this is false. I think most people on this side support people’s right to associate with other adults of their choosing, regardless of whether the desire is a chioce or innate.
Whether there’s a strong desire or not, the supposed ‘evidence’ for the genetic explanation is weak enough and refuted enough that it’s extremely foolish, unreasonable, and unscientific to claim that black people have inferior genes for intelligence.
Fine. I’ll let you know if I see anyone trying to shame scientists into not looking into it.
No, people who claim that black people have inferior genes for intelligence are labeled “racist”.
Just like people who claim that Jews are inherently genetically inclined to greed and dishonesty are labeled “racist” or “bigots”.
Actually, based on real-life follow up, here’s what (predictably) happened:
“In recent years, the Harvard economist Roland Fryer has essentially tried to extend the M&M experiment to the scale of a metropolitan school system. He tested several different incentive programs in public schools—offering bonuses to teachers if they improved their classes’ test results; offering incentives like cellphone minutes to students if they improved their own test results; offering families financial incentives if their children did better. The experiments were painstaking and carefully run—and the results have been almost uniformly disappointing. There are a couple of bright spots in the data—in Dallas, a program that paid young kids for each book they read seems to have contributed to better reading scores for English-speaking students. But for the most part, the programs were a bust. The biggest experiment, which offered incentives to teachers in New York City, cost $75 million and took three years to conduct. And in the spring of 2011, Fryer reported that it had produced no positive results at all.”
Another $75 Million of my tax dollars wasted on stupidity, chasing bogus hopes that all differences are simply a result of disparate nurture. If we just had used Snickers instead of M&Ms…maybe THAT’s it! The magic missing nurturing variable at last!
OK; that’s it. You are making stuff come out my nose now, from laughing.
But let’s get it into the Federal budget: One M&M per black kid per exam, and iiandyiiii’s “centuries of oppression” excuse is not only in the toilet; the Gap is solved! And the Pedant will have to crawl back into his hole with his fellow racist cockroaches.
You and iiandyiiii should be handing out M&M’s to black kids like candy! Oh wait…it is candy…
I’m trying to follow you, but how does any of this translate to:
2 + 2 = 7, or
The United States Constitution was written in 1547?
And why only blacks? Why not asians with histories of oppression?
And how did the privileged and educated black parents figure it out, but are now not able to pass along the skillset for overcoming those centuries of oppression to their equally privileged children?
Well, uh…uh…somebody is stupid enough to think M&M’s can eliminate the black/white IQ gap. So stupid, that they post it.
Pardon me a moment while I get a tissue and wipe the snot that came out of my nose laughing at you.
I do not look forward to an answer from you reflecting even a smidgen of intellect, of any kind.
Unless maybe you eat a whole bag of M&Ms first.
You think “Blacks are teh lazy” is a better explanation for any technology gap at colonization than “Blacks are teh dumb”
God you’re thick. This is not hard at all. Two kids – one of them has experiences in day to day life that makes him less motivated to learn, or less focused in class, or more angry and distracted, or something else that obstructs learning. Therefore, he’s less likely to learn a basic skill, or more likely to deliberately write the wrong answer, or more likely to forget something he learned, or more likely to just make no effort and randomly answer questions without trying to be correct at all.
That’s all.
Maybe because the oppression has been very different in character, in severity, in length of time, etc. Different historical events have different ramifications.
Many of them are able to “pass along the skillset” – rich black kids perform better than poor black kids. But the obstacles remain, and make it harder (in some ways) than for non-black parents and kids. Some of the kids are able to overcome the obstacles, some of them aren’t. Some of them partially overcome them, or learn to overcome them later in life.
Jeez, this stuff really isn’t hard at all. You really couldn’t imagine these kinds of things on your own?
Then why the hell did the scores go up with the extra motivation? Was this just random chance?
You really believe that motivation has nothing to do with the academic performance of children? You really don’t believe that some children perform poorly because they’re poorly motivated?
Hey iiandyiiii, I was wondering…
What about the idea that, instead of centuries of oppression, the real issue has been whites and asians have just been hogging all the chocolate?
Thoughts? At least throw it into your mix of putative nurturing variables, maybe? Somewhere between “My ancestors were enslaved,” and “My teacher had a low expectation for me, so that’s why I forgot that the formula for the area of a triangle”?
Do some studies and get back to me. Stop being such a lazy coward and do some fucking science.
Hint: Go back and reread the quote I posted from EE’s cite when the idea from this research was put into actual practice–in New York, for example, to the tune of $75 Million. It’s bogus.
Then work on deciding for yourself if it’s silly, overstated research, or if it’s a real fact.
I know you like to live in the world of theories and supposition. But your dilemma is that the real world is the world of facts and real world outcomes.
Let me help you think through this wit a couple of real world examples, currently in the news: Diversity reports for Google, Facebook and Apple’s tech groups.
Google and Facebook have about 1% blacks in their tech group; about 30-40% asians. For Apple, it’s about 6% and 23%, respectively, I think (the tech group diversity by ethnicity is all US b/c that’s where those groups get identified so race-based AA and other diversity initiatives can be tracked by race group).
Now those three companies–and perhaps especially Google and FB–put prospective employees through company-specific add-on screenings of various kinds. These may be interview questions which require technical or analytic answers, psychometric tests that are like little SAT/IQ tests, and so on. Many large companies do this, especially where they want high-performing knowledge workers. They do not trust resumes or grades or recommendations or even schools. That process is what fundamentally skews the workforce way beyond the numbers of the various groups being graduated from higher academia.
Take a look at those numbers. In the case of FB, asians are over-represented relative to their percentage of the general population by a multiple of 9. Blacks are underrepresented by a multiple of 12. That is a 120-fold proportionate difference, and you think handing the black candidates M&Ms would help significantly because some guy’s lame-o study showed scores go up with M&M motivation?
Are you living on Mars? ( Get it? 
)
Well, in my cohort of one, I always eat some chocolate before an exam, and I generally do well.
Of course, I eat chocolate before everything, so I probably shouldn’t publish my study just yet.
So, given the poor performance of privileged black children compared with underprivileged white children, the idea is that the “centuries of ancestral oppression” variable tends to skip a generation?
The thickness continues. This does not follow at all from my post, and you continue to misstate my point.
It’s not bogus – it’s just complicated. I read the whole article, unlike you, apparently:
"Segal’s findings give us a new way of thinking about the so-called low-IQ kids who took part in the M&M experiment in south Florida. Remember, they scored poorly on the first IQ test and then did much better on the second test, the one with the M&M incentive. So the question was: What was the real IQ of an average “low-IQ” student? Was it 79 or 97? Well, you could certainly make the case that his or her true IQ must be 97. You’re supposed to try hard on IQ tests, and when the low-IQ kids had the M&M’s to motivate them, they tried hard. It’s not as if the M&M’s magically gave them the intelligence to figure out the answers; they must have already possessed it. So in fact, they weren’t low-IQ at all. Their IQs were about average.
But what Segal’s experiment suggests is that it was actually their first score, the 79, that was more relevant to their future prospects. That was their equivalent of the coding-test score, the low-stakes, low-reward test that predicts how well someone is going to do in life. They may not have been low in IQ, but they were low in whatever quality it is that makes a person try hard on an IQ test without any obvious incentive. And what Segal’s research shows is that that is a very valuable quality to possess."
So the low scoring kids, in all likelihood, weren’t less intelligent – they were just less motivated. This may not have translated to the long-term study because it’s much easier to raise motivation for a single test than for an entire school year. But it demonstrates that the problem for these kids is likely not a lack of intelligence – it’s a lack of proper motivation.
No idea what relevance this stuff has – it seems like more “the gap exists, therefore genes” nonsense.
Considering how black people, even with equal qualifications, are discriminated against in the work place, these kinds of stats really aren’t that surprising, unfortunately.