Hyper-evolution!
I was going to say Tiger Woods, but it might be a few more years until that effect shows up on the SATs.
Vermont must be super-genius level.
IQ of 99 is, by definition, below average. IQ is normalized so that 100 is average.
Yup. There aren’t enough :smack:, :rolleyes:, or :dubious: in the world to describe the complete and total disconnect in rational thinking to argue an average IQ of 99 for Hawaii bolsters the argument it’s somehow above average.
Probably none. What does matter is that No Child Left Behind has not bridged the gap. Also, blacks did improve, but not as much as whites, and not nearly as well as Orientals.
That doesn’t matter, either. It proves nothing about genetics.
Ok, then you admit that genetics has nothing to do with SAT scores.
You are over generalizing from what I wrote. The fact that Orientals are increasing their scores both in mathematics and reading demonstrates that other factors in addition to genetics are important.
Potential matters, and it is determined genetically. If one gets a group of teen age boys of about the same age that have different athletic aptitudes, but which have not exercised regularly, and put them through a physical fitness regimen, those with the most athletic talent will improve the most.
Because Orientals generally have more native intelligence than other groups, when school becomes more demanding, they advance the most.
The fact that No Child Left Behind has left so many children behind, and that those left behind are disproportionately black and Hispanic, certainly indicates truths about genetic differences between individuals and races.
No it doesn’t. What it leaves behind are:
- People whose ancestors were held in slavery and oppressed through Jim Crow laws (including the denial of a good education) for centuries, and who still face a uniquely high level of racial prejudice, including from people who believe they’re genetically inferior; and
- First-generation immigrants from impoverished countries, children who take tests in a language not their native language, children whose parents may not have had access to a strong formal education, a group that traditionally doesn’t perform well on tests.
Then there’s the third group:
3) Poor kids.
In my experience, socioeconomic level is a much better predictor of whether a child will pass the EOG than is skin color.
None of these things indicate anything about genetic differences.
This is a ridiculous statement. There are other programs that have helped black and Hispanic students more than white students- does this mean that blacks and Hispanics are smarter?
You’re really reaching.
I’ll ask again- how can all sub-Saharan Africans be one race when some populations of sub-Saharan Africans are closer genetically to some “white” populations than to certain other “black” populations?
They are closer genetically, except for the smart genes, which evolved in Eurasia. I read it on the internet and everything!
They can be because what follows your “because” is not true, except in the case of inter racial reproduction.
What are those programs? How successful have they been? Did white students have equal access to them? Unless you can answer those questions while documenting your assertions, you are reaching.
First generation Orientals perform well in American schools, as did first generation Jewish immigrants during the turn of the last century.
Very wrong- what I said is absolutely true, and any geneticist knows it. Look at figure 1 here: Nigerians/Yoruba are closer to Chinese and the French, genetically, than to the San of south-eastern Africa.
Look at table S 6.2 here showing genetic divergence dates (relative): Yoruba and the French and Chinese have a more recent common ancestor than Yoruba and the San people (note that the researchers used French, Han Chinese, Yoruba, Papuan, and San to compare a broad selection of human populations with Neanderthals).
It is an absolute, and commonly accepted fact that Africa is more genetically diverse than the rest of humanity. And it is an absolute and commonly accept fact that some black African populations are closer, genetically, to Eurasians than certain other far-flung black Africans. And yet you lump all blacks as one race.
Do you recognize how that doesn’t make any sense?
You failed to answer these questions (except for the first) for No Child Left Behind. Did minority students have equal access to it? What data do you have to support this?
I’m not going to go further into this, because it’s absurd that a single, controversial political program (that many think is a complete failure) could demonstrate anything as complicated as genetic correlation between race (which you’ve failed to define, due to greater genetic diversity in Africa) and intelligence.
Why do you keep ignoring my examples?
First generation Chinese immigrants in the 19th century (railroad workers) do not fit this mold. Guess what? Unlike current immigrants, they weren’t cherry-picked from middle and upper class families.
First generation Vietnamese after that unfortunate little dustup we were involved in? Ditto.
First generation Irish during the potato famine? No better.
You’re not doing a good job of showing there’s an innate difference, rather than the selection bias that’s obvious when you limit your examples to fairly educated, middle to upper class people.
Of course, that doesn’t even begin to address the example of Hawaii (nor your laughably self-contradictory response to it) nor the fact that 3rd generation Asians underperform their parents and what that implies about selection bias in immigrant families.
You took a very small bit of what I posted to respond to. I didn’t talk about “first generation immigrants.” I talked about, well, let’s look at what you quoted and ignored, with underlining:
Perhaps the underlining will help you respond to that part. And I’ll provide you a tag to put in your response post where necessary: [citation needed].