I posit, instead, that much of that success has been driven by very active programs to preferentially promote and recruit the best and brightest black candidates, even where they would not otherwise be competitive. In medicine and law, for instance, we overlook quantitative exam scores for blacks and bring them into the fold anyway, doing our damndest to make sure they get through school. This does not mean they are on an academic par with Eurasians. The average total MCAT score of a black physician is 26 versus 32 for Asians (8.5 v 11 for physical sciences). This is a fairly large gap.
That pattern is echoed across industries and corporations in the US. It is not the case that socioeconomic success correlates with identical academic success if you factor in preferential hiring or hiring practices which discount quantitative scores. I might add that in medicine, at least, success at the very highest tiers with specialization exams means even fewer black physicians at those levels.
I am of the opinion that quantitative scores are not perfect correlates for career success and certainly in medicine at least they are not the only factor for what goes into being a good physician. They are, however, an objective measurement of something, and that something varies consistently by race class.
While we’re mentioning IQ testing, have you heard of the Flynn Effect?
This is the principle that performance on IQ tests improves over time. So, say, if you were writing an IQ test for 8-year olds, this year’s 8-year olds would do better than last year’s, who did better than the year before, and so on.
This is a well-established principle, and, accordingly, IQ tests must be made harder every year to ensure an average score of 100.
The interesting thing is that the flynn effect is greatest among blacks. In other words the supposed IQ gap is closing.
The general consensus is that this shows that IQ tests aren’t really measuring innate ability but something else, something strongly affected by upbringing.
(Incidentally, I am a black person with an IQ of 154 (established under formal exam conditions). I am a little sensitive talking about possible IQ differences because so many people confuse generalisations with a lot of overlap and outliers with “I must be smarter than you, cos you’re that race”)
Finally, I just want to say that I work with many bright african people and I have no doubt that there is sufficient intellect in the region, even with the brain drain.
As I said before: I don’t think a country needs people with 120+ IQs to get on its feet. It just needs an honest government, and a period of stability, which depends more on luck.
The problem for africa is that the period of stability required is much longer than, say, an eastern-european country, for various reasons.
Are you aware that of all the studies done on adopted children all over the world, not a single one shows a higher correlation of IQ between children and their adopted parents vs their birth parents?
Well then, rest assured that if your kids end up by freak circumstances to be in the raised by retarded foster care parents, it won’t matter. Your IQ matters more than the foster parents IQ.
Well, I overstated my hand in implying that there is no hereditary factor in IQ test performance. Of course there is.
However, it’s not quite true what you’ve said here. One of the most famous studies, of adopted black children, for example, appeared (at least in the eyes of the authors) to be consistent with environment being the best predictive factor (cite)
Do you have some kind of point somewhere? Are you contending that the current conditions in Africa exist because Africans are mentally deficient? Or is this just a statement that different population groups have different characteristics? Or are you saying that the value of a person can be determined by the cumulative test scores of people sharing common genes?
Well I wasn’t sure where you stood on the spectrum. It sure seems like some folks on this board believe intelligence is 1% nature and 99% nurture as if kids “learn” their intelligence from their upbringing (e.g. adoptive parents).
The idea that children are blank slates is very compelling so it’s hard to blame ourselves for falling into that trap. I’m reminded of the story where we used to believe smiling was cultural – we humans “learned” how to smile by watching other humans smile. It certainly sounds plausible – until you realize that congenitally blind babies also smile when they are happy.
Nope.
The interpretation of the IQ data was incorrect and the author admitted it:
“In a 1998 article, Scarr admitted that she and her co-authors had overstated the plausibility of the environmental explanation in their study”
So? Do we see lots more black physicians killing their patients? How about rates for successful torts against black vs white (vs Asian) physicians? All your information, so far, supports the notion that some groups do better or worse on various tests. As a long doubter of tests, I am quite willing to concede that some groups do better or worse on tests that have failed to demonstrate anything much beyond an ability to provide scores over which to argue.
And I am afraid that I am finding your explanation a bit curious. Even supposing massive amounts of aid to get blacks through various programs, they still have to succeed or fail in the real world. The base line for your point that started this tangent was an examination of test scores of students whose parents were already in the six figure range. This indicates people who have been out of school for around twenty years or longer who are now established and drawing a sizable income. If you really believe that that entire group comprises nothing but socially promoted doctors and the occasional athelete, then I suspect that you have not actually looked at the data.
That’s interesting. Personally, I’ve never been attracted to blank slate theories, mainly because I felt that evolutionary theories explain much of our behaviour very well.
And I still think this, in spite of how unfashionable EP has become in some quarters (of course, whether it has predictive value is the key thing, and from what I’ve seen, it does)
Ok, let’s say all adoption studies have fallen on the side of inheritance (I can’t be arsed to google around on this, so I’ll take your word for it).
It’s still necessary to eliminate the womb environment as a possible factor before we can say it points unequivocally to genetics.
Also, what about the flynn effect? Why do you suppose that IQs are increasing more quickly among blacks? (cite and wiki)
Yes, I’m open to this possibility because it’s more biologically related. Biology explanations are more plausible than outcomes affected by adoptive parents IQ, or quality of schooling the child enrolls in.
It’s an interesting trend and I don’t have any good guesses for this.
Possibly the general health (diet & nutrition) of the black population has been getting better over the last few generations and their IQ performance reflects that.
Originally Posted by Susanann
However, you cannot blame the “government” instead of putting the blame where it belongs: the African people themselves.The people can change their government any time they want. "No government can sit in power without the consent of its people"
Yes, I will give you that it is true that a government, a dictator, whatever, can gain or hold on to power by giving or promising food, or whatever pork barrel goodies they can think up. But that is as you admit a “choice” by the people to have that government. Maybe a bad choice, but still a choice.
However, no government, no dictator can hold on to power over its own citizens, at the point of a gun. Didnt you ever hear of “revolution”? “assassination”? “overthrow”? “coup”? A government can never hold power over a people by force.
Every ruler, every government, every dictator, knows that he MUST constantly remain popular, else…he will be doomed,hanged,shot,poisoned,head cut off,exiled, etc. This is especially true of dicators. Nobody worries more about retaining power than a dictator.
Of course. That is what they want, that is what they like, that is what they choose, that is what they get.
This is not to say that that system will make all of its peoples wealthy, but that is for the people of that country to decide, not us.
I dont know why some Americans, and some Europeans seem to think that every little tiny country in the world “wants” to have a Constitutional Republic with an American Constitution along with the same Bill of Rights that we set up in 1789. They dont.
What people in other countries have, is the government that THEY want.
Not all governments foster personal freedoms and personal wealth, but that is not our decision.
The United States should NOT send in our military and invade other countries, tear down their governments, and then set up our government and our laws into those countries.
Bottom line: the African people have EXACTLY the government that THEY want.
Admittedly, some people foolishly choose dictators. Then they regret that decision and a new dictator takes over, without asking the people first. A big part of being a dictator is not giving people a choice.
Even democracies can be so corrupt that the people have no voice in the electoral process, leaving a country that only a minority wants. Or a country can be taken over by an another country, even one that internally operates as a democracy, but still not give the people a choice in their government.
If you contend that people have the government they deserve, I’d agree in certain circumstances. But even in a democracy like the US, you will find no shortage of people who do not want the government they have.
Well, I can speak to physicians. The short answer is that those weaker scores do seem to manifest consistently out in the real world on two fronts: more limited success in getting black physicians all the way through to sub-specialization (where the examination process is increasingly rigorous), and increased disciplinary actions. These disciplinary actions in medicine tend to be for quite significant events; we have long been criticized for being too lenient on ourselves.
I assume you’ve seen this.
*"A Courant analysis of disciplinary actions against doctors nationwide found, however, that both Howard and Meharry produce troubled doctors more frequently than most other schools - at rates about 10 times greater than the schools with the lowest numbers. The actions ranged from a simple citation to permanent license revocation for a range of misdeeds including medical incompetence, ethical lapses and criminal behavior.
The findings - controversial and politically sensitive as they are - defy simple explanation."*
I’m sure you are aware the historically black medical schools have (by far) the lowest admitting MCAT scores. As you can imagine, these sorts of studies are not popular, and not popular to publish, since the topic is quite sensitive.
The data looking at parental education and income levels goes back decades, and has not changed. I have looked at lots and lots of data; I’m not sure what you mean by that last comment. I’m not close to my personal library right now but I have quite a number of books and thousands of citations…is there alternate data you want to point me to? In general I am fairly conscientious about following up on purchasing references cited here (most recently, a book on the black-white test score gap recommended by Kimstu–that’s the one I’m citing as evidence the score gap has not narrowed in the US, at least, in twenty years).
Rule of thumb on the SDMB:
Everyone and anyone posting a personal “formally tested” IQ score seems to love a number in the low 150s…I’m not quite sure why, nor why they might think it’s relevant to post a score. But it is an amazingly popular number to pick.
You might consider [http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20PSnew.pdf] this commentary by Rushton and Jensen on the Race IQ gap. They offer a number of criticisms of Dickens and Flynn. In any case, ordinary academic testing remains stubbornly resistant to the elimination of gaps the world over.
I don’t generally spend much time either with folks unable to distinguish between a scientific discussion of group averages and a personal insult, as if race were an achievement and every individual is representative of the group. But it comes with the territory to be besieged by well-meaning defenders of egalitarianism.
I don’t know anything about you even though some of the posters seem to have conversed with you previously. You have posted controversial theories regarding IQ and genetics on a thread titled: Reasons Africa is “lagging behind”? Personally, I don’t have any reason to suspect that IQ and related test scores wouldn’t show differences in population groups, and I’m not surprised that there are people who will disagree with you based on an egalitarian argument. Do you have anything more than that as point?
This is a bizarre opinion, to the point where I’m still not sure if you’re serious. There are dozens of examples of dictators* around the world holding on to power against the will of the people. The general rule is: if you’re prepared to let your army fire on your people, you can stay in power as long as you like.
And, more relevant to this thread, is that countries that have coups or rebellions are generally the poorest in africa. A civil war can wipe out decades of growth in a heartbeat.
Until you get to batshit crazy like Mugabe, it’s usually better to live under a dictator than risk the chaos that follows trying to force them out.
Of course very few leaders admit to leading an autocracy. They’ll claim to be a democracy but are a dictatorship in practice.
Another rule of thumb is that if you mention that you scored well on an IQ test, other posters will suddenly become hostile.
As I’ve said before; I don’t believe that you can measure intelligence with a simple, paper test.
But sure; I scored 154. That was on the “Cattell B” IQ test. On this test a score of148 is sufficient to join Mensa (I believe that on the more common test nowadays, you must score 132, so I did an easier test and got a score that maybe sounds more intimidating than it should :))
I joined (British) Mensa and indeed the magazine is right next to me. The front cover is inane, showing that scoring well on an IQ test is not an indicator of wit or subtlety…
They are not against the will of those people, the people support and like those dictators…at least as much as we like bush and obama. Did you ever hear of “The Bay of Pigs”? The everyday common people did not even show up to get rid of Castro…because the people did not want to get rid of Castro. There is not a single dictator out there who is holding onto power against the will of its people.
The days of the Foreign Legion are gone. Where do you think “the army” comes from? The army is composed of the people. The people are their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, uncles, nephews, sons, daugters, and even themselves before they joined up.
That is because they continue to choose new leaders who are the same as the old leaders, the same old economic system, the same old political system, the same old tax system, the same old courts, the same old attitude towards capitalism, the same old not wanting common everyday regular folks to have freedom like the United States Bill of Rights. Its a choice.
There is not a single county out there who wants a government and a society like the United States, with our laws, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our culture. NOt a one!!
YOu can pretend, and make excuses, and deny all you want that people in different countries actually choose a goverment that you dont agree with, but the fact of the matter is that all people in every country of the world have EXACTLY!!! the government they want and deserve, and that **“No government can sit in power without the consent of its people”.
**