# Why do black pupils in the US underachieve academically when one factors out poverty? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948 "2009-01-25T20:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/441 "2015-01-21T19:52:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I care about “can”. That’s the thing I’ve been arguing in all these threads. We know that different physical attributes—skin color, size, eye shape, hair texture—have a genetic component and align with populations we can classify as races. I see no reason why intelligence, or more specifically, the genetic component of intelligence, should be immune to any variance among races. Why in the world should that be? It very well _may_ be the case, and I’ll go as far as to say that I personally think it is the case that differences in intelligence will likely one day found to be _not_ genetic, certainly not exclusively genetic. But—it _can_ be genetic. It may be genetic. And that wouldn’t surprise me either. > > So, “can” is what it is all about. But you and others just can’t stomach the discussion so you attempt to cut it off any way you can. When you’re nitpicking fails, it’s the old , “But there are no races anyway.—so, there!” Inherent genetic intelligence (whatever it may be) may vary by race/ethnicity/population (the “can”). Considering the experimental evidence against this assertion, and the complete lack of genetic evidence for this assertion, I see no reason to accept it as true or likely at all. In fact, considering the evidence against it, I see the assertion that black people have inferior genes for intelligence on average as far, far less likely than explanations based on “nurture” (society, parenting, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/442 "2015-01-21T19:54:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So epicanthic folds are equally common in all races, huh? What “race” does epicanthic folds align with – unless you define the race as “people with epicanthic folds”? Are the San and Japanese really the same race? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/443 "2015-01-21T19:57:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not convinced, when we’re talking about 10ths and 100ths of a second. And I’m not convinced when, historically, sprinting has been dominated by runners from all kinds of places. In 50 years, the best white sprinters may well be faster than Usain Bolt, considering how the best times have evolved and cluster. > > Do you really think black skin – whether from native Australians, Congolese rainforest tribes, Andaman Islanders, Sri Lankans, Sudanese, etc. – has something to do with sprinting? I thought (for the common belief, anyway) it was about West African genes. The idea that, somehow, just having dark skin makes one a better sprinter, or that sprinting ability can be predicted by skin darkness, sounds ludicrous. > > In all likelihood, based on appearance and where they hail from, most of the top 100 sprinters have both African and non-African ancestry. There are a few that have no African ancestry (like Patrick Johnson and Christopher Lemaitre). Without knowing the genes involved, I’m not ready to accept that genes are the explanation for various disparities (and especially not ready to accept that it has something to do with “black skin”). > > In case you’re curious, my skepticism about the involvement of genes as an explanation for disparities in sports like sprinting is far less strong than my skepticism about the genetic explanation for test score disparities – I’m not aware of any specific experimental evidence that refutes the genetic explanation for sprinting disparities (unlike the genetic explanation for test score disparities), and things like sprinting are much, much easier to measure than intelligence, and probably have many many fewer compounding societal factors. > > But I’m not just going to accept an assertion about black skin and sprinting (which is a pretty ridiculous assertion, considering how many unrelated groups have very dark skin) without data about the genes involved and their relative prevalence. JFC!!! Look at the list of sprinters. Look at all the speed positions in football. Compare the number of people with black skin there with the general populations. You say you want data. But when it is presented to you the size of a billboard you try to wiggle away from it. No one is saying that black skin causes greater A or less B, only that there seems to be a strong correlation in the case of spring tin, and a weak correlation when it comes to innate intelligence, as is suggested by testing. Hell it could very well be that to be really fast you need a black skin gene and some other gene that isn’t so easily seen. But to deny the correlation is just asinine. It’s becoming increasingly evident that you and **Dibble** are too emotionally vested in the outcome to have a reasonable debate. ::shrug:: ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/444 "2015-01-21T20:09:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > JFC!!! Look at the list of sprinters. Look at all the speed positions in football. Compare the number of people with black skin there with the general populations. You say you want data. But when it is presented to you the size of a billboard you try to wiggle away from it. No one is saying that black skin causes greater A or less B, only that there seems to be a strong correlation in the case of spring tin, and a weak correlation when it comes to innate intelligence, as is suggested by testing. Hell it could very well be that to be really fast you need a black skin gene and some other gene that isn’t so easily seen. But to deny the correlation is just asinine. Most of this doesn’t conflict with my post. I recognize the disparities and the correlations – the question is what is the best explanation? The existence of these disparities and correlations tells us nothing about their cause. Of course these correlations exist – they just tell us nothing about genetics. That’s why your turnstile hypothetical is so pointless – all it does is recognize an appearance-based correlation. It tells us nothing about the reason behind that correlation. > [@](#): > > It’s becoming increasingly evident that you and **Dibble** are too emotionally vested in the outcome to have a reasonable debate. ::shrug:: I’m emotionally invested in two things, relating to these topics – calling out racist claims (like ‘black people are inherently genetically inferior in intelligence on average’) – and calling out bad science (like making assertions about the genes for intelligence in various populations with no data about which genes one is talking about, much less their relative prevalence, or making judgments about intelligence based on who has nuclear weapons). I haven’t heard you make racist claims in this thread (or other threads, I don’t think), and I don’t recall you defending any particularly egregious science – our only disagreement seems to be that you don’t think I’ve left enough doubt or something that maybe genes are involved. I don’t think such a disagreement is really worth discussing – I’m not close to certain about any explanation for various disparities, including the test-score disparity… I just make it a point to strongly refute the extremely poor science and conclusions that the “blacks are dumber” crowd continues to repeat ad nauseam. And it doesn’t help that they repeatedly make racist claims. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/445 "2015-01-21T20:37:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So epicanthic folds are equally common in all races, huh? Nope. But they certainly occur in much greater percentages in one particular non-Asian traditional “race” than they do in the Asian “race” as a whole. Seriously, man, we’ve done epicanthic folds before. They’re a trait from my back yard. Find a new schtick. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/446 "2015-01-21T21:12:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Many fewer studies have taken into account parental education than SES, from what I’ve seen, but I’ll concede this point. I don’t think it matters, because there are nigh-infinite other potential nurture factors that have not come close to being corrected for. As mentioned previously, this is a Finagle Factor - the correlation “might” be due to something untestable. And there might be invisible birds flying over your head. > [@](#): > > No it doesn’t. Even “West African” tells us little about someone’s ancestry. Right - apart from telling where someone is descended from, it doesn’t tell us anything. Likewise, your address doesn’t tell much about where you live. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/447 "2015-01-21T21:42:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So epicanthic folds are equally common in all races, huh? Ironic that you bray this to a man who might have non-zero [Khoisan](https://www.google.ca/search?q=khoisan&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=653&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SBzAVIj7MZOTyASCoILgAQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=khoisan+face&revid=1153352588) ancestry with nary a tinge of awareness. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/448 "2015-01-21T21:49:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll address the “nurturing” variables part here. Outcomes, in fact, are specific to a small number of places in which there’s been anything close to adequate testing and attempts to normalize any nurture factors at all (and SES are the only nurture factors addressed anywhere). They are specific to the present and very recent history – outcome “hierarchies” were very different at various other times and places in the past. There have been times in which nearly every group was higher or lower on the metaphorical totem pole than they are now. > > From a few data points over a paltry few decades after literally centuries of brutal repression you extrapolate that the current pattern must necessarily continue forever. And you continually ignore actual experimental evidence that refutes the genetic explanation, and hand-wave away any insistence that such experiments could easily (really, truly easily!) be repeated. > > And you apply ridiculous things like _the development of nuclear weapons_ to somehow reinforce your assertion (how???) that some groups are inherently genetically superior in intelligence, on average. > > This pattern is absolutely not stubbornly persistent – it’s persisted for a miniscule slice of history in which we’ve actually made any efforts, weak as they are, to address inequalities. Despite your assertions, you don’t actually have any knowledge of what “teachers around the world” (beyond anecdotal acquaintances) privately acknowledge, and you have no knowledge of what scientists secretly believe. > > And most ridiculous of all is the assertion that if we only went back to 19th century ideas about black intelligence, that somehow things would be better for black people. As if we can’t just look at history and see what actions and behaviors those beliefs were used to justify. You are kind of all over the place here… It shouldn’t take any generations at all to make what happened to gramps irrelevant for grandboy. If grandboy’s parents are wealthy and grandboy still underperforms academically to poverty boy, then ten thousand years of ancestry are irrelevant as SES explanations. In point of fact, for every group in every system except blacks, ancestry beyond parents is irrelevant, and the pattern is stubbornly persistent across the world, whether or not a history of race-specific oppression exists. These are not a “few data points.” These are tens of thousands of data points, and repeated daily year after year. It doesn’t matter if it’s the SAT, the LSAT, the MCAT or the Connecticut firefighter exam for promotion. Same broad pattern. The “nuclear weapons” point I made was that it’s hard to paint an entire country as dumb if they have internal skills to let them develop nuclear weapons. (And for India, there are many more markers than just nukes.) I’ll stick with that assertion. Lack of nuclear weapons does not mean a country is dumber, so I did not use it as a relative indicator of anything. However if you are interested in advancing some of the markers you feel are significant indicators for the overall intellect of african-majority countries, have at it. I would be happy to entertain them. For the last time your 40 year old study which showed exactly the same overall pattern (about a standard deviation in black/white performance difference) and purported to put to rest genes by using blood groups and skin intensity to create an admixture proxy for which black kid is blacker genetically is silly. Sounds good when you summarize it so confidently, though. 🙂 Maybe you can get by with repeatedly citing it and hope no one actually reads it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/449 "2015-01-21T23:22:20Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You are kind of all over the place here… > > It shouldn’t take any generations at all to make what happened to gramps irrelevant for grandboy. If grandboy’s parents are wealthy and grandboy still underperforms academically to poverty boy, then ten thousand years of ancestry are irrelevant as SES explanations. In point of fact, for every group in every system except blacks, ancestry beyond parents is irrelevant, and the pattern is stubbornly persistent across the world, whether or not a history of race-specific oppression exists. It’s not just about what happened to previous generations, it’s what’s happening now. It’s about society in the present. This pattern is not “stubbornly persistent”, it’s barely a blip. A few decades in a few societies, with paltry efforts at best to correct it. > [@](#): > > These are not a “few data points.” These are tens of thousands of data points, and repeated daily year after year. It doesn’t matter if it’s the SAT, the LSAT, the MCAT or the Connecticut firefighter exam for promotion. Same broad pattern. Same pattern over a tiny portion of time in a society that is still far from equal. It tells us nothing. > [@](#): > > The “nuclear weapons” point I made was that it’s hard to paint an entire country as dumb if they have internal skills to let them develop nuclear weapons. (And for India, there are many more markers than just nukes.) I’ll stick with that assertion. Lack of nuclear weapons does not mean a country is dumber, so I did not use it as a relative indicator of anything. It’s hard to paint an entire country as dumb if they doctors or lawyers or engineers. It’s hard to paint an entire country as dumb. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with this. > [@](#): > > However if you are interested in advancing some of the markers you feel are significant indicators for the overall intellect of african-majority countries, have at it. I would be happy to entertain them. They are humans. They are not a separate population who are all more closely related to each other than to outsiders. There’s no way to group them all together by common group ancestry without including most or all non-African groups. There is specific experimental evidence that refutes the assertion that they are inherently less intelligent, genetically, on average. > [@](#): > > For the last time your 40 year old study which showed exactly the same overall pattern (about a standard deviation in black/white performance difference) and purported to put to rest genes by using blood groups and skin intensity to create an admixture proxy for which black kid is blacker genetically is silly. Sounds good when you summarize it so confidently, though. 🙂 Maybe you can get by with repeatedly citing it and hope no one actually reads it. They didn’t use “skin intensity” as a proxy for ancestry. You constantly describe this wrong – they used blood group loci. Those are genetic markers used for ancestry, even if they may be less precise then modern methods. If you or others in the “blacks are dumber” crowd really cared to dispute this study, you or they could easily repeat it. It wouldn’t be hard, and it wouldn’t be expensive. But you and they haven’t. And it’s not because there’s a conspiracy to keep the truth out – it’s because the “blacks are dumber” crowd is either too lazy to actually do good science or not actually interested in doing good science. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/450 "2015-01-21T23:31:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And it’s not because there’s a conspiracy to keep the truth out – it’s because the “blacks are dumber” crowd is either too lazy to actually do good science or not actually interested in doing good science. You forgot an option: They are too dumb to understand science. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/451 "2015-01-22T14:20:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > For fuck’s sake, get it through your head - we know no such fucking thing. **Not one of those characteristics “aligns with” races**. **Not a fucking one**. You are wrong about this “known” fact, you’ve had it pointed out before, and yet you persist. I’m not going to even look at the rest of the drivel you posted. Because given the wrongness of that 3rd sentence, that’s all it can be. Drivel. If this is true, are complaints about “racial profiling” false? I thought that complaint was based on the idea that someone was treated differently just based on their appearance. But of course if there is no such thing as physical characteristics aligning with race, than this complaint is invalid. You cannot be stopped for driving while black because the officer would have no idea whether or not you are black since there is no alignment of appearance with race. Teachers and employers cannot treat you differently because you are black, since they would have no idea because your appearance does not align with your race. The public history of discrimination toward blacks didn’t really exist because the public wouldn’t even know if someone was black since these appearance characteristics don’t align with a self-identified race category… Am I understanding you point correctly? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/452 "2015-01-22T14:35:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not just about what happened to previous generations, it’s what’s happening now. It’s about society in the present. This pattern is not “stubbornly persistent”, it’s barely a blip. A few decades in a few societies, with paltry efforts at best to correct it. > … > They didn’t use “skin intensity” as a proxy for ancestry. You constantly describe this wrong – they used blood group loci. Those are genetic markers used for ancestry, even if they may be less precise then modern methods. > > If you or others in the “blacks are dumber” crowd really cared to dispute this study, you or they could easily repeat it. It wouldn’t be hard, and it wouldn’t be expensive. But you and they haven’t. And it’s not because there’s a conspiracy to keep the truth out – it’s because the “blacks are dumber” crowd is either too lazy to actually do good science or not actually interested in doing good science. No one is going to do a study looking at genes, admixture and intelligence. It is way too inflammatory a topic to touch. If you want to cling to a belief that this is a doable grant funding in the modern world, have at it. I understand there may be variables beyond ancestry. I’m asking you to lose grampa’s situation as a reason for why a black child underperforms poor white and asian peers when Dad is wealthy. I won’t keep beating up your 40 year old study because you and I are probably the only ones who have read it. I’m not sure you read it carefully enough if you think the authors did not use skin color as part of their crazy ass approach to admixture, who was blackest, and why blacker blacks could be compared with whiter blacks using their odds coefficient to explain why admixture rules out genes even though in their own study the exact same gap occurs between black and white kids: _ **"Skin Color Reflectance.** Both black and white twins were measured on skin reflectance. Three filters (red, blue, green) and three locations (forehead, medial aspect of the lower arm, andinside of the upper arm) combined to produce nine measures of skin color reflectance. Thereflectance values were so highly intercorrelated (r \> 0.8) that only one, red filter-forehead, willbe reported here. The reliability of the skin color measures is reflected in the very high heritabil-ities, between 0.85 and 0.98."_ ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/453 "2015-01-22T14:42:26Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > No one is going to do a study looking a genes, admixture and intelligence. It is way too inflammatory a topic to touch. If you want to cling to a belief that this is a doable grant funding in the modern world, have at it. Bullshit. It would be cheap to do, with modern methodology – any group (or even any individual) with a little desire and effort could get it done on their own. That no one seems interested (and folks like you keep making excuses) speaks volumes about how they really feel about good science. Good scientists manage to do good science even if a topic is controversial. > [@](#): > > I understand there may be variables beyond ancestry. I’m asking you to lose grampa’s situation as a reason for why a black child underperforms poor white and asian peers when Dad is wealthy. My hypothesized obstacles that exist for black students doesn’t rely on ‘gramps’ at all. If they exist, they exist for wealthy black kids (who might be better equipped and thus have a better chance of overcoming such obstacles) and poor black kids alike. > [@](#): > > I won’t keep beating up your 40 year old study because you and I are probably the only ones who have read it. I’m not sure you read it carefully enough if you think the authors did not use skin color as part of their crazy ass approach to admixture, who was blackest, and why blacker blacks could be compared with whiter blacks using their odds coefficient to explain why admixture rules out genes even though in their own study the exact same gap occurs between black and white kids: > _ **"Skin Color Reflectance.** > Both black and white twins were measured on skin reflectance. Three filters (red, blue, green) and three locations (forehead, medial aspect of the lower arm, andinside of the upper arm) combined to produce nine measures of skin color reflectance. Thereflectance values were so highly intercorrelated (r \> 0.8) that only one, red filter-forehead, willbe reported here. The reliability of the skin color measures is reflected in the very high heritabil-ities, between 0.85 and 0.98."_ Skin color was looked at to see if the test scores correlated at all to skin color, and this was compared to any possible correlation to ancestry by blood group loci. Skin color was not used as a proxy for African ancestry – quite the opposite. It was looked at to see if a _visible indicator_ of perceived ancestry is correlated to lower test scores – and it turns out that it is. So kids who are _perceived_ as ‘more African’ (by having darker skin) score lower, but kids who are _actually_ ‘more African’ (by genetic ancestry) do not. Which is exactly what we’d expect if it was societal factors like day-to-day discrimination, media representations, and the like, rather than genetic factors, that were to blame for the test score disparity. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/454 "2015-01-22T15:04:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > No one is going to do a study looking at genes, admixture and intelligence. It is way too inflammatory a topic to touch. If you want to cling to a belief that this is a doable grant funding in the modern world, have at it. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bullshit. It would be cheap to do, with modern methodology – any group (or even any individual) with a little desire and effort could get it done on their own. That no one seems interested (and folks like you keep making excuses) speaks volumes about how they really feel about good science. Good scientists manage to do good science even if a topic is controversial. Wait a minute. Didn’t someone already link to such a study in this or one of the [dozens of] other threads on this subject? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/455 "2015-01-22T15:10:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait a minute. Didn’t someone already link to such a study in this or one of the [dozens of] other threads on this subject? We’re talking about repeating the Scarr study. **CP** doesn’t like that study (which I’ve linked to multiple times), and I’m telling him that if he or anyone else doesn’t like that study because the methodology is older (it’s from the late 70s), then they should repeat the study with modern methods. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/456 "2015-01-22T15:44:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bullshit. It would be cheap to do, with modern methodology – any group (or even any individual) with a little desire and effort could get it done on their own. That no one seems interested (and folks like you keep making excuses) speaks volumes about how they really feel about good science. Good scientists manage to do good science even if a topic is controversial. From what I understand, there are a number of people who are interested, and I suspect this kind of study will be done and public available within a few years. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/457 "2015-01-22T15:44:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re talking about repeating the Scarr study. **CP** doesn’t like that study (which I’ve linked to multiple times), and I’m telling him that if he or anyone else doesn’t like that study because the methodology is older (it’s from the late 70s), then they should repeat the study with modern methods. If the study is invalid, then it doesn’t prove anything. If you want to prove anything, you should repeat the study with modern methods. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/458 "2015-01-22T15:46:13Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > No one is going to do a study looking at genes, admixture and intelligence. It is way too inflammatory a topic to touch. If you want to cling to a belief that this is a doable grant funding in the modern world, have at it. > \* This is nonsense. I’ve seen papers get published all the time on at least equally controversial topics (including stuff that touches on racial and gender hot buttons). I’ll take a bet with you that something will get published on the topic within five years. (I have no clue what they may find). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/459 "2015-01-22T15:47:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the study is invalid, then it doesn’t prove anything. If you want to prove anything, you should repeat the study with modern methods. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. > > Regards, > Shodan The study is valid. There’s nothing wrong with the methodology. But if anyone doesn’t like it, they are free to repeat it. That they don’t shows that they’re either too lazy, too incompetent, or too uninterested to do good science themselves. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948/460 "2015-01-22T15:49:00Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > From what I understand, there are a number of people who are interested, and I suspect this kind of study will be done and public available within a few years. If so, I look forward to reading about the findings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-black-pupils-in-the-us-underachieve-academically-when-one-factors-out-poverty/482948.md?page=24)