AFAIK I did use less than half of the article. And much less on the early one. Are those hard to follow or do they need to be simplified for you?
And of course, duly noted that you can not reply to the articles or the post.
Okay, so Ockham’s razor says what specifically about:
—The persistence of the disparity across socioeconomic categories
—The fact that Hispanics have partially caught up, but blacks have not
—The U of Chicago/Harvard intervention that dramatically improved performance of Hispanic and white kids, but did zilch for black kids
—The $200 million injection into Newark schools that provided better facilities and boosted graduation rates but did nothing for test scores
?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Easy. If you’re just looking for the simplest explanation that makes the fewest assumptions, all of these phenomena can be explained as somehow caused by persistent societal racism. We know for sure that persistent societal racism exists, whereas we do not know whether any racial-group-specific genetic differences in intelligence exist. Therefore, the social-effect explanation is the simplest.
Of course, I didn’t claim that that’s necessarily the correct explanation. But it’s definitely the one we end up with if we’re really using Ockham’s Razor.
You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to justify confirmation bias by calling it Ockham’s Razor, which is not the same thing.
You went astray with “somehow”, and your “confirmation bias” accusation is pot/kettle-ish as all getout.
FWIW, my Bayesian prior was just what you believe. My very smart parents strongly held that view, and the only black kid in my high school class was adopted by my parents’ white friends and became the valedictorian at a school that was in the top 5% in Minnesota, a state with notably good public schools.
And if the UoC/Harvard or Newark interventions, or all the shakeups mandated by NCLB, had different results, I would still believe what you do. Given the actual evidence, I can only conclude that Sam was right in his latest podcast to say that people like you and Klein are “abandoning scientific parsimony for the sake of political correctness.” (Such a way with words, that guy.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you also comfortable with the figures that show that thin people have higher IQs than fat people?
Cite? Interesting if true.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BTW, why would there be any question as to whether I would be comfortable with it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope. If the criterion is merely “which explanation is the simplest based on the available evidence”, then the “systemic racism” hypothesis wins hands down.
If the criterion is something like “which explanation relying only on scientifically supported explanations of cause-effect mechanisms instead of vague ‘somehow’ handwaving is the simplest”, then both the systemic-racism hypothesis and the genetics hypothesis fail.
“Believe”? “Believe” has nothing to do with it. My fundamental point in this discussion is that the issue is not a matter of belief, and we shouldn’t be using belief of any kind as a substitute for evidence. Not even if we apply statistics technical terms to it to make it sound more smart and science-y.
I personally do not know, and don’t particularly care, whether there really are any significant genetic differences in intelligence that somehow manifest along racial-group lines. The most important relevant point in the current state of our knowledge on this subject, which you seem resolutely determined to ignore, is that there is no scientific evidence for such genetic differences occurring between racial groups. No amount of selective interpretation of cherrypicked incidents and studies can substitute for consistent and robust scientific evidence.
The truly scientifically parsimonious view of race and IQ score differences is that there currently exists no scientifically satisfactory theory explaining their relation. Scientific parsimony does not require us to pick any scientifically unsupported hypothesis to “believe” just because otherwise we’d have to put up with uncertainty.
This is more reasonable than the vast majority of what I’ve seen in this thread, so I’ll take it. Do you agree that, framed this way, it is unfair to blame “failing schools” (teachers and administrators) and teacher unions for the differences?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kimstu’s replies already dealt with that, and then:
**The fact has been that scientific racists like Murray told us that that Hispanic advance was not going to happen.
**
Already replied to, (and it also made a mockery of Murray and others regarding the Hispanics) nowhere did you told us that the Chicago intervention did what the other intervention I quoted from Florida did.
Already replied to, ‘Ockham’ told you first that besides you being inadvertently in favor of corruption in schools (the Newark intervention came originally because of corruption in those schools) the intervention there once again did not help the parents or the households directly too.
Since Murray and others are wrong about the Hispanics, why should the assumption is that they are still right about Black students when in reality a lot of interventions are not adequate for that community?
He could be referring to this this study:
Could be. Makes sense.
Not sure what point they were trying to make, though.
GIGO: I’m sorry, but I just can’t understand you. La la la! Vancome Lady Makeup Counter - YouTube
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This overstates the case, I think. The view that black-white differences in IQ are strongly influenced by genetics is a plausible, though unproven, theory that has many supporters in the field of cognitive research. Obviously these researchers are basing their views on scientific evidence.
Well, I have to apologise for thinking I did not need to tell you that in a 4th grade level. It is also telling that on 3 different posts you are telling us that the points made by the cites I made are also impossible to follow. (So, clearly it is not my fault, you have a gross problem dealing with cites and the reality that those who you are following are racists)
So, very simply:
Murray, like other scientific racists, thought that Hispanics would never improve their IQ, that was poppycock. And “scientists” that fail in such spectacular manner should not be respected at all.
And thank you for finding the evidence.
The intervention by the millionaire in Florida is evidence that most interventions you cited did not help black kids in the proper way because that millionaire clearly did.
Such as? I think there’s been much too much conflation here of “evidence that could be consistent with a genetic basis for racial-group IQ test score differences” with “evidence that actually indicates a genetic basis for racial-group IQ test score differences”. Before I can tell whether any given researcher(s) are in fact asserting the existence of the latter rather than the former, I’d need you to cite the specific claims they are making.
As I said, I haven’t been following the discussion on school policy choices so I don’t have an existing opinion about claims of “failing schools”. And I’m afraid your track record in the part of the discussion I have been following does not inspire a priori complete confidence in the accuracy of your description. But if you point me to a specific instance of what you consider “unfair blame” being assigned in this regard, I’ll check it out and see whether I agree with you.
It’s not at all surprising that the two disparate groups have some difference in IQ distribution.
You’re trying to take us down into the weeds, but I want us to stay a little bit higher up. Experts, including the editor of the journal Intelligence and the attendees canvassed at an ISIR conference (Genetics, genetic groups, intelligence, expertise, by James Thompson - The Unz Review), are willing to endorse more generally the prospects for race-based IQ differentials being genetically based to a substantial degree. If you think this is bogus, then you are essentially declaring an entire class of scientists to be illegitimate. How is that different from a climate change denier who insists that all the climatologists at the IPCC are charlatans?
Even the scientists who most harshly criticized Harris and Murray in Vox come across to me as not likely to endorse most of the rhetoric we’ve seen in this thread. Not only did they acknowledge that there are many legitimate researchers in the field whose views are closer to Murray’s than theirs, there’s this interesting paragraph in a followup, also in Vox:
I can’t help but read this as, essentially, “okay, if you really press me on it I would probably have to admit genetically based IQ differences between people based on ethnic ancestry, but the way we are dividing up ‘races’ is far too broad, crude, and based on ‘our current political and cultural preoccupations’.” I’m completely open to that idea, that it comes down to better defining who counts as part of which group, maybe using genetic testing rather than self-identification. But I had not gotten the sense that you or almost anyone here is okay with that approach, or willing to entertain the possibility of ethnic variation in average IQ.
I guess you haven’t seen the influential documentary “Waiting for Superman”? What about, for starters, the Mother Jones piece I linked to and excerpted not long ago in this thread?
Opinions can be bogus as the example of the scientists that fell for paranormal powers showed. And I have plenty of experience on the abuse of surveys from climate change deniers to say that the survey cited is incomplete, for starters.
Seeing the spectacular failure from the scientific racists regarding the Hispanics, anyone that claims that most researhers should agree more with Murray is the one peddling nonsence.
That was seven paragraphs, Sparky. What happened to your high horse about “fair use?” It seems a bit inconsistent.
Unless… unless you were only bringing it up earlier as a way to attack GIGO. But there’s no way that could possibly be the case. Right? Because that would mean you’re a straight-up assho–
Ohhhh, never mind.