That may be another factor, since the rates for drunkenness and liquor law violations are also disproportionately low.
Regards,
Shodan
This cite says black and white drivers are stopped at similar rates, but black drivers are much more likely to be searched. There’s some evidence that police officers making traffic stops are more likely to view minorities suspiciously.
Um, ‘biologically rooted’ does not translate to ‘genetic’, and neither ‘genetic’ nor ‘biological’ translates to ‘immutable’.
Susceptibility to diabetes for example, is a highly heritable trait that differs among racial groups, but you can still control those tendencies with healthy diet and insulin injections.
Also, variation in intelligence has a large component that’s due neither to genetics nor culture but rather to prenatal effects. prenatal environment has a heavy effect on all sorts of behavioural and cognitive traits, and IQ is no exception. Intelligence might also have some heritable non-genetic influences, as does height.
I’d be interested to see a citation that ‘black children raised by white families had higher test scores’. If it’s the study from Germany with the children of US soldiers, that one is problematic since they pre-screen for IQ. In general, adopted children show IQ scores closer to their biological parents than to their adoptive ones.
I didn’t say it was “immutable” I said it wasn’t “currently fixable.” As in “we do not have the tools necessary to fix this, at this present time.” I would hope that if we found an “intelligence” gene or gene set and figured it’s direct effect on how it handles intelligence, we would exploit an insulin-like treatment for it as soon as we could.
However, since something like intelligence is probably polygenic, I have doubts that we could easily discern a single and/or simple solution, as we do with diabetes. It would be more like treating “cancer” where each type of cancer has it’s own set of causes and treatments are changed based on what they are looking at (some cancers also have multiple treatment options based on the size, location, and other details.) You’ll note that cancers aren’t yet “fixable” in terms of curing them. I expect this same difficulty from modifying pretty much any polygenic trait: Even if you develop a good treatment for one portion (e.g. gene y allele produces less of protein “Int”) you wouldn’t be treating everyone that has intelligence issues.
The problem with a prenatal cause, though, is that these sorts of environmental features are not heritable and we’d have a much wider distribution of test scores across the nation than we currently do if that was a primary contributor. And, as Chief Pedant points out, we’d have high SES black persons who would receive the proper prenatal care and would achieve just as much as their white counterparts and we’d likely see a much stronger correlation to income distribution than to race.
I might note, though, that culture is also a part of environment and it’s the part of environment that tends to be highly transmissible.
I don’t think I’m familiar with that particular study. I couldn’t find the first one in online library links: Scarr and Weinburg 1976, followup in 1992. Deberry, Scarr, and Weinburg 1994. Loehlin 2000.
There is discussion about these papers and there is room for both a primary genetic and a primary environmental cause. But the fact that adoption causes gain makes me lean towards environmental. The fact that it’s constrained to racial groups makes me lean towards cultural.
But, this has made me think: Are there studies of this subject in other western countries?
Referring back to some earlier points, here’s evidence that racial segregation in schools is increasing.
You take the best black applicants you have and give them an admission preference. Then you help them every step of the way. Med school is not particularly hard; it has historically been competitive for admission because the career pays well. That’s changed (as has the cost of getting through) so it may become a less competitive field for entry.
You cannot apply the same criteria for everyone because there would be almost no black physicians in the country if you did (and especially if elimination of race-based preferences eliminate HBCU medical training). Among the things that would suffer is service to predominately black underserved communities.
What would also suffer (and particularly so if the “same criteria” concept were extended to all higher education or exam-requiring jobs such as firefighter advancement) is the opportunity to build a nation where there is some reasonable black middle class and some reasonable number of blacks in middle class and professional jobs. IOW, diversity of race.
Cite? (I have only seen studies that suggest those gaps are improved for preadolescents and it widens again for adults.) We are back to “blacks are lousy parents” again? I am not going to engage a debate on genetics here, but if you want to resurrect another thread around that, have at it. I’ve more or less said my piece elsewhere on the various aspects of argument and the various studies.
If you want to just support your claim, I’ll read it without replying here. This thread is not about nature versus nurture arguments.
Well-educated people with broad life experience know those odds. It’s been my (anecdotal) experience that people who don’t have a lot of life experience or insight seriously misjudge those odds.
A friend who is a junior-high teacher in a school with many disadvantaged kids reports that same thing: kids AND THEIR PARENTS see sports in particular as the answer and the path that will bring them wealth.
Probably part of this has to do with role models. When you think of successful whites in this country, there are any number to choose from: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, assorted Silicon Valley wunderkinds, etc., etc., etc. Now name the really prominent and successful blacks in this country, the ones who get their names in the news and on TV. Many of them got their fame and fortune on the field or the stage, others in the pulpit, and far fewer in careers requiring education.
Are role models over rated as drivers for accomplishment?
There are rich or successful guys I’d like to be–business and sports–but mainly I pursued what I was good at, and it was an iterative feedback loop because I did well at what I was good at.
I figured out pretty fast what I was not going to make a living at, including (sob) golf; Nicklaus and other role models notwithstanding.
I think an explanation that lack of role model confuses kids into underperformance for things that would help them is an over-rated explanation. Kids with an ability for academics are not ditching academic achievement to pursue a shot at the NBA.
No, they’re not ditching academic achievement, but you yourself note the feedback loop: kids who work hard at academics tend to be better at academics just because of that work.
Meanwhile, I see a certain segment that views role models not just in the sense of “who I’d like to be” but also as “who it is possible for me to be”: the perception that if you are black and want to be rich and successful, the way is through sports and music, because only whites become rich and successful in, e.g., technology.
Note that I am NOT saying this is an accurate or even reasonable perception, but I think it is a somewhat common perception in some places and among some groups. Again, it’s a feedback loop: when the people from your neighborhood or school that you see becoming even sort of successful are those who receive an athletics scholarship, for example, it reinforces the notion that athletics is a “better” way forward than academics. This is especially true when basketball, e.g., is something you’re good at and academics isn’t your strongest suit: you work harder at basketball, and not so much at the bookwork. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of talented basketball players in this country, but it becomes easy to delude yourself that you’ll be one of the fortunate few who make it in the NBA.