Well that is why I liked this article and do not know why everybody is attacking it, since he challenged every so called fact that Slate put out there. This was a rebuttal in the New York Times editorial section. Why attack the person supporting your argument who shows data that contradicts the premise that we are inferior intellectually? As I said, I just don't get it
Martin wrote: > > Tracey, I challenge the "scientific" in almost anything that Slate > pushes onto its web page. I want to see the credentials of the person > who wrote that. And, as a mathematician, I can make any batch of > numbers say anything I want them to. > > "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:tdlists%40multiculturaladvantage.com>> wrote: Here is the > thing guys. I'm confused. There was a "scientific" article > on Slate that said that Blacks statistically 15 -20 points dumber than > anyone else and the guys had the numbers to support it. So this guy > response by tearing about those numbers and showing that those numbers > are irrelevant and providing evidence from other tests that disprove his > theory and you have a problem with this guy. He is saying that race > does not determine intellect in the face of all the scientists that are > saying that race determines intellect. > > Your response baffles me. I got to reread this article > > Daryle wrote: > > > > Key term here: diversionary. I totally agree. > > > > Race is the new ³gay marriage². Anti-Christianity is the new > > ³immigration². > > We¹ve seen all of this before. Folks who write these articles should be > > ashamed of themselves. It¹s old hat at this point. > > > > Daryle > > > > On 12/12/07 2:12 PM, "Martin" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (standing ovation) > > > > > > ravenadal > > > wrote: > > > I am so tired of this argument because it is diversionary. The truth > > > of the matter is this: the only difference between uneducated white > > > people and uneducated black people is that uneducated white people > > > have jobs. > > > > > > The only difference between educated white people and educated black > > > people is that educated white people have BETTER jobs. > > > > > > ~(no)rave! > > > > > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > , > > > "Tracey de Morsella (formerly > > > Tracey L. Minor)" wrote: > > >> > > > >> > All Brains Are the Same Color > > >> > By RICHARD E. NISBETT > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html? > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html?> > > > > > pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion > > >> > Ann Arbor, Mich. > > >> > > > >> > JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he > > > was > > >> > â?1/2inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africaâ?? and its > > > citizens > > >> > because â?1/2all our social policies are based on the fact that > their > > >> > intelligence is the same as ours â?" whereas all the testing says > > > not really.â?? > > >> > > > >> > Dr. Watsonâ?^(TM)s remarks created a huge stir because they implied > > > that > > >> > blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy > > > resulted > > >> > in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. > > > But > > >> > was he right? Is there a genetic difference between blacks and > > > whites > > >> > that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less intelligent? > > >> > > > >> > The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in > > > a > > >> > 1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a > > >> > psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen > > >> > maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and > > > whites > > >> > was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that could > > >> > never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of the > > >> > evidence. And others who later made the same argument â?" Richard > > >> > Herrnstein and Charles Murray in â?1/2The Bell Curve,â?? in > 1994, for > > > example, > > >> > and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on Slate > > > â?" > > >> > have made the same mistake. > > >> > > > >> > In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences > > > in > > >> > I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic. > > >> > > > >> > The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 > > > percent > > >> > of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most > > > estimates > > >> > of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of > > >> > middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a > > > substantial > > >> > proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the > > > range > > >> > of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric > > >> > Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means that for the > > > poor, > > >> > improvements in environment have great potential to bring about > > >> > increases in I.Q. > > >> > > > >> > In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells > > > us > > >> > nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a > > > trait > > >> > is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants), > > > modifiability > > >> > can also be great (think of the difference growing conditions can > > > make). > > >> > > > >> > Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. > > >> > differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that > > > brain > > >> > size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have smaller > > >> > brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men and > > > women > > >> > is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet > > > men > > >> > and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests. Likewise, a > > > group > > >> > of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that > > > produces > > >> > extremely small head sizes â?" and hence brain sizes. Yet their > > >> > intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives. > > >> > > > >> > Why rely on such misleading and indirect findings when we have much > > > more > > >> > direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap? About 25 percent > > > of > > >> > the genes in the American black population are European, meaning > > > that > > >> > the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent African to > > > mostly > > >> > European. If European intelligence genes are superior, then blacks > > > who > > >> > have relatively more European genes ought to have higher > I.Q.â?^(TM)s > > > than > > >> > those who have more African genes. But it turns out that skin color > > > and > > >> > â?1/2negroidnessâ?? of features â?" both measures of the degree > of a > > > black > > >> > personâ?^(TM)s European ancestry â?" are only weakly associated > with > > > I.Q. (even > > >> > though we might well expect a moderately high association due to > > > the > > >> > social advantages of such features). > > >> > > > >> > During World War II, both black and white American soldiers > > > fathered > > >> > children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 > > > percent > > >> > European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested > > > in > > >> > later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were > > > found to > > >> > have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an > > >> > average of 96.5, a trivial difference. > > >> > > > >> > If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the > > >> > smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when > > > a > > >> > group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children > > > in > > >> > the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their > > > parents > > >> > and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater > > > degree of > > >> > European ancestry than blacks in the population at large. > > >> > > > >> > Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the > > > degree > > >> > to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group > > > assays > > >> > show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q. > > >> > Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high > > >> > intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in > > > origin > > >> > than other blood groups. > > >> > > > >> > The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is > > > a > > >> > study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been > > > adopted by > > >> > white parents had lower I.Q.â?^(TM)s than those of mixed-race > > children > > > adopted > > >> > by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study > > > had > > >> > many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a > > > >> > substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age > > > at > > >> > adoption is associated with lower I.Q. > > >> > > > >> > A superior adoption study â?" and one not discussed by the > > > hereditarians â?" > > >> > was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist > > > Elsie > > >> > Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by > > >> > middle-class families, either black or white, and found no > > > difference in > > >> > I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. > > >> > Mooreâ?^(TM)s finding that children adopted by white families had > > > I.Q.â?^(TM)s 13 > > >> > points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The > > >> > environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are > > > not as > > >> > favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class > > > whites. > > >> > > > >> > Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what > > >> > factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case > > > Western > > >> > Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community > > > College > > >> > tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability > > > to > > >> > learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had > > > substantially > > >> > more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but when > > > participants > > >> > were tested on their ability to learn new words, either from > > > dictionary > > >> > definitions or by learning their meaning in context, the blacks did > > > just > > >> > as well as the whites. > > >> > > > >> > Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to > > >> > recognize similarities and better facility with analogies â?" when > > >> > solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more > > > likely > > >> > to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of > > > reasoning > > >> > were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks > > > and > > >> > whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior > > > knowledge > > >> > predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was > > > prior > > >> > knowledge only that differed. > > >> > > > >> > What do we know about the effects of environment? > > >> > > > >> > That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the > > >> > so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. > > > researcher > > >> > in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a > > > whole, > > >> > I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States > > > alone, > > >> > it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough > > > over > > >> > such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the > > >> > result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could > > > produce > > >> > changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also > > > produce > > >> > big differences between subpopulations at any given time. > > >> > > > >> > In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white > > >> > 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last > > > 30 > > >> > years â?" a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways > > > than > > >> > the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of > > >> > Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math > > >> > improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks. > > >> > > > >> > Most important, we know that interventions at every age from > > > infancy to > > >> > college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic > > > achievement, > > >> > sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. This > > >> > mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has > > >> > environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as > > > a > > >> > society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to > > > develop > > >> > their minds. > > >> > > > >> > Richard E. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of > > >> > Michigan, is the author of â?1/2The Geography of Thought: How > Asians > > > and > > >> > Westerners Think Differently and Why.â?? > > >> > > > > > > > "There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels > > will get > > > organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man > > Without A > > > Country" > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > > Search. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > "There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will > get organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man > Without A Country" > > --------------------------------- > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try > it now. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
