I have given you studies (in this case, one designed by folks firmly in the egalitarian camp) and you suggest I am indulging in “rhetorical bullshit.”
Which part of my presentation of that study was “rhetorical bullshit”?
Would you mind giving me studies you find powerful evidence that environmental differences drive academic score gaps?
Which “gap shrank a lot” other than the intelligence gap? And do you agree that intelligence gap is still about one standard deviation for adult blacks? Do you agree that by “a lot” we mean 6 out of 21 IQ points–i.e. from an average adult black IQ of 79 in 1972 to 85 in 2002?
No you don’t- I don’t think they are inferior, and you believe that black people, on average, are inherently genetically less intelligent. So no, our opinions are not close to the same on this.
No, you’re wrong about what I believe about the cause. I’m not confident at all what the cause is. I have some suspicions, but I’m not particularly confident in them.
I believe that the data shows that the test score gap includes IQ test scores, and the gap has shrunk to some degree.
LOL! Yes, the “trap” of a widely accepted and non controversial effect. Oh no, what will I do?
Sure, I’m “backing away” from positions I never held. If you want to believe that, go ahead.
I guess I don’t remember that. Can you give me a quote from the article to help jog my memory?
On page 44 of the article, they say, “It is difficult to explain the large scoring gap that remains between blacks and whites…” They go on to posit that family income and parental education might explain the difference…
Oh, wait a minute! This is the same JBHE that published my one of the prior studies I cited saying family income and parental education, nor any SES measure, accounts for the difference. They must have forgotten what they said before. Then they go on to postulate a number of completely unsupported and unresearched potential differences like “different elementary schools” and so on. All pure speculation; all straw-grasping at the next possible environmental difference. The typical “anything but genes” desperate search for an unending list of putative non-genetic reasons.
You are right that they did not ascribe it to genes.
The search for the “mystery” difference continues…
And that is part of why the point mentioned awhile ago is validated, the pickings are not easy on your side, so even the more or less good cites (not dealing with genetics) have to be cherry picked also.
And once again, you show all why you are continue with the Quixotism, same old, same old.
I believe the measured IQ and academic test score differences are genetically driven. I believe black scores are inferior to white scores.
I distinguish between “inferior” as a term assigning a human worth, and a term used to assign a score ranking.
You want to play with rhetoric like a kindergartner who might say, “Neener neener…the Pedant thinks blacks are inferior” and thereby conflate the two concepts.
Rhetoric won’t win the day from my perspective. Even though you struggle to admit it, you also believe that blacks have markedly inferior scores. Neither of us thinks that even a real cognitive difference makes one individual “inferior” to another in a broad sense. I have mentally challenged relatives. I am personally markedly inferior mentally to a host of people (at least two or three I know of personally ).
I don’t confuse or conflate the uses of the term “inferior” and neither should you.
I would like to clarify your understanding of IQ versus academic scores for taught content. Do you hold that IQ scores do not reflect cognitive ability?
I suspect not- at least, I suspect IQ scores are not a particularly good indicator of “cognitive ability” (which is another poorly defined concept). I don’t believe intelligence is a well defined concept, and I don’t believe it’s particularly well understood cross-culturally. My view is close to Tim Wise’s, stated above.
We will continue to pursue all possible secret and heretofore unthought-of environmental variables until the cows come home, constantly upping the ante for normalizing nurturing.
We will stubbornly refuse to accept the obvious: If high SES for blacks against low SES for other SIRE groups doesn’t make a difference, we are screwed for environmental differences. We’ll have to make do with stuff like crappy infant parenting, lame teacher expectations and oppositional culture.
Yes, I recognize that you dismiss other explanations. I don’t. I believe that the “black experience” in the United States is very, very different from the “white experience”, in many ways that have not been measured yet. I believe that the legacy of slavery still has a profound effect on the culture, media, and even mindset of both white and black (and other) Americans, despite the great progress that has been made.
And I don’t accept any explanation without positive evidence for it; without genetic evidence, there’s no reason to accept the genetic explanation.
In short, you believe the legacy of slavery, through unidentified means, drives performance outcome differences in the United States, reflected in IQ and academic score gaps.
Would it be your expectation then, that cultures and political systems without such a history of slavery would not show such performance gaps? Or is there one reason for this gap in the US, a different reason for the gap in Sweden or Mauritius, and so on…? Or, is it the case that gaps don’t exist outside of the US?
In areas of performance outcomes where blacks have clear superiority over whites and asians (sprinting sports; basketball…), is it the case that this legacy of slavery also drives that, at least indirectly? Or is that some other cultural/nurturing reason not related to slavery? Where west africans show one superiority–basketball, say–and east africans another–long-distance running–is that also related to a legacy of slavery, or is that also cultural, but a different cultural influence?
Here is an example of the kind of generalized pattern I’m talking about. I don’t see this pattern as peculiar to the US and its legacy of slavery.
"Like Trinidad, Mauritius is a multi-ethnic society, its population composed of groups of Indian (Hindu and Muslim), African,mixed, French and Chinese descent. …
Official Mauritian policy depicts Mauritian culture as a mosaic of Hindu, Muslim, European, African and Chinese influences, and it is highly unpopular to encourage the dissolution of cultural boundaries. Intermarriage is, incidentally, very rare.The division of labour in Mauritius remains ethnically correlated, although this tendency is strongest in the traditional occupations. Generally, Hindus and Muslims are associated with agriculture, and most are still employed (or self-employed) in the sugar industry, although Indo-Mauritians are to be found in any profession. The Coloureds follow the liberal professions (doctors, lawyers, teachers), and many work in the media and the civil service, while most of the black Creoles belong to the working class, as artisans, dockers, industrial workers and fishermen. The Sino-Mauritians dominate retail trade and play an increasingly important part in the new industries, while the Franco-Mauritians own and run the sugar industry…
In Mauritius, it is now the black Creoles who are lagging behind as the country speedily passes through its IMF-monitored industrial revolution…
As Mauritian society changes and a growing number of opportunities emerge, the Creoles are the least equipped to meet the challenges. Poorly educated and profoundly disorganised, they are definitely worse off than any other ethnic group, and the gulf is widening."
So the general idea is that the pattern might always be the same, but wherever we see this pattern, the most likely explanation is anything non-genetic?
And these different reasons are a more parsimonious explanation than the single explanation of genes?
Because we have plenty of non-controversial data that at least a portion of the test-score gap is explained by non-genetic factors (and no genetic data), that would a reasonable starting point.
Has anyone seen the paper that tested the impact of motivation on IQ tests ?
They took a group of kids and administered IQ tests to all of them. They then took the low-scoring kids and gave them another IQ test, this time offering them an M&M for each answer they got right.
The average IQ score of this group of kids went from 79 to 97; that’s more than a standard deviation increase for the cost of a couple of chocolates.
Anyone who thinks IQ is an immutable measure of intelligence should have that study tattooed on their face. And anyone who thinks environment (or even just motivation) can’t lead to a single standard deviation difference in test results should be force-fed M&Ms until they’re intelligent enough to recognize that they are wrong.
).