I know - I mentioned this behavior of his further up the page. But hey, I had the finger and I get so little chance to use it…
I have too. You just did not accept it. The races differ enough that they can be distinguished by DNA samples. Indeed a DNA test can tell that a person who looks black had one white ancestor five generations ago, while the other 31 great great great grand parents were black.
The reason it does make sense to distinguish people by race is that the races evolved in different parts of the world and faced different population pressures. This effects not only the way they look, but the way most of them behave and perform.
Changes in the NAEP are minimal. The SAT correlates more closely with IQ.
Latin American countries with high murder rates have mixed race populations. Latin American countries with low murder rates have predominantly European populations.
Chinese have low crime rates wherever they live. Travelers on the mainland have reported that they feel safe there.
This is what the United States State Department has to say about China:
For most visitors, China remains a very safe country. Petty street crime and business disputes between U.S. and Chinese partners are the most common safety concerns for U.S. citizens in China…
Violent crime isnot common in China.
Now there’s a statement of yours I can agree with.
SAT scores do correlate with IQ. For example, Longstreth et al (1986) reported a correlation of r = .48, and Beaujean et al. (2006) reported a correlation of r =.43.
One can determine how much of the variance in one score is accounted for by the other score by squaring the correlation coefficient. Here, this gives an r-squared of between .19 and .23. This means that somewhere around 20% of SAT scores is explained by IQ. It therefore suggests that about 80% of SAT scores is explained by something other than IQ.
What matters is that the race gap between blacks and whites in SAT scores has increased since the school year of 1990-91, despite No Child Left Behind.
The failure of No Child Left Behind provides more evidence of the assertions made in The Bell Curve.
Perfect example of the manner in which you entirely blow past actual evidence that cuts against your preferred ideology. If genetics exerts influence on the SAT through IQ, then the changes you are jumping up and down about are largely due to other factors than genetics. (Again, if 80% of SAT scores are explained by something other than IQ.)
Do you comprehend this? Please affirm.
And the rather harsh totalitarian government has nothing to do with this? And what about the rest of East and South East Asia? Burma? Thailand? Vietnam? Laos? Indonesia? Malaysia? Korea (either one)? Japan? Are they all equally safe countries? Or does the culture, wealth and history of each perhaps have some relevance? What about the nasty recent history of Asians? Have they evolved significantly in the last 70 years?
Well you have asserted that NDD’s views had been “debunked.”
As I understand things (and please correct me if I have misunderstood anyone’s position), NDD’s detractors maintain that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups.
At the same time, NDD’s position (and mine too) is that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is NOT distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups. And that specifically (among other things) blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.
Did I misunderstand or misstate your position somehow?
Actually, you are the one who is hand-waving as will become clear shortly.
So if a set of human groups “do not exist,” then any claim that an observed disparity among those groups is due in large part to genes is necessarily false?
Is that your position?
And do people outside of the grouping have to lack such common or related genotypes in order for the group to “exist”?
We need a Young Earth Creationists for the trifecta of stupid.
When I use the word “Orientals” I use it as a subset of “Mongoloids,” which in turn can be seen as a subset of Asians.
Orientals are Mongolians, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetanese, Japanese, and Vietnamese.
I have already posted what the State Department has to say about the crime rate in China.
This is what they say about crime in Mongolia:
CRIME: Street crime is common in Mongolia, particularly in Ulaanbaatar, the capital. Most of the street crime is non-violent.
This is what they say about crime in South Korea:
CRIME: The crime rate in the Republic of Korea is low.
The State Department does not have a separate website for Tibet.
This is what they say about crime in Japan:
CRIME: The general crime rate in Japan is well below the U.S. national average.
This is what they say about crime in Vietnam:
CRIME: Pick-pocketing and other petty crimes occur regularly…violent crimes such as armed robbery are still relatively rare in Vietnam.
China, Vietnam, and Mongolia have fairly low per capita gross domestic products.
You talk about culture as though it is somehow distinct form the biological quality of a nation. The truth is that a superior people creates and recreates a superior culture, despite hardships. This has certainly been true for the Jews and the Chinese.
On the other hand…
Well, let’s not go there. :eek:
You seem to be saying that because SAT scores are somewhat flexible they are not genetic. This ignores the fact that considerable differences remain, and that the differences are becoming more pronounced.
I have said previously that when a training program becomes more rigorous those with the most talent are likely to improve the most. This explains why white SAT scores have improved more than black scores, and why Oriental scores have improved more than white scores.
I, and probably some others, maintain that no one has proven that such a hypothesis is true. I don’t have any idea if “genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits” is distributed equally among these subjective groupings.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said in this thread and the other thread- Africans have more diversity genetically than the rest of the world combined. Africa, by itself, contains 100% of all human genetic diversity- any given population outside of Africa always has less. That means that two random Africans, even in the same region, might be less genetically similar than either is with a random Eurasian.
In light of this, it’s simply ludicrous to speak of “blacks” or “sub-Saharan Africans” as a single race.
The time for “not going there” was when you joined the board and began churning out this garbage. It’s a bit late for decorum after you’ve smeared the walls with shit.
Aha, a teachable moment,
**Now, here is where the overall idiocy comes from, most of the time it comes from blogessors that tell sods like brazil that those facts that researchers report say the opposite of what they report, the trick is also made by only showing a partial view of the overall picture. On top of that the experts report that looking at specific bits of the evidence is cherry picking and it is just a plain misleading effort from the part of the pseudo-scientists **
And there is also another item that is related to what we are discussion here regarding the idiocy of NDD.
If what I said in bold was not true then when we go ask the expert sources of that data pointed out by brazil84, **it should be easy **to find then if the experts are agreeing with him, no such luck.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCCedu/index.shtml
When one follows the link it is clear that they refer to the greenhouse gases scenarios that include the worrisome “business as usual” one where we do not curb emissions, there are more up to date sites from the university, but another common denominator of deniers of science is to rely on outdated sources, in this case it is because now those experts are even more unequivocal of what humans are doing and the consequences.
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/research/01climate.html
And this takes us to the other nut here, if the data did support the causes and the conclusions that NDD proposes it should be really easy to find the research institutions and professors supporting the same causes and conclusions that come from the data, so far what NDD has is indeed like the global change deniers have: they misuse good data that in reality does not support what they say and there are no good expert researchers to point to that are using those racist trade books to guide current academic research.
No. Please reconsider until you understand. If statistically IQ explains only a small portion of SAT scores, it means that even though they do correlate, SAT scores serve as a rather poor proxy for IQ scores, and approximately 80% of SAT scores are explained by other factors.
When you attempt to use SAT scores to prop up your argument regarding race and IQ, you are making a serious error. You need to either introduce another construct that would link race and IQ that would also increase the explanation of SAT scores, or drop the use of SAT scores to buttress your argument. It’s quite simple to propose that sociodemographic factors could very well account for some of that 80%, and would very likely explain more of the change in SAT scores than IQ.
You may say it, but it is extremely unlikely. Ceiling effects on a scale like the SAT mean that intervention efforts typically yield greater change among those who have more of the scale to travel, not less. Your assertion is extraordinary, and requires more than your say-so to support it.
Particularly when you’ve done so much damage to the credibility of your say-so to this point.
Then how would you refer to them?
And however you refer to them, it doesn’t change the facts that (1) there is a group of people which is commonly referred to as being of “sub-Saharan African” descent; (2) there is a group of people which is commonly referred to as “white” or of “European” descent; (3) there is a significant gap in intelligence in these groups as measured by various tests; and (4) this gap is due in large part to genetics.
Yeah. I think it’s actually (4) that we’re waiting for some proof of.