If the United States places some sort of economic embargo on Iran this probably means there will be no more Persian rugs for sale in the U. S. I advise my readers to visit this before it's too late. There is nothing like a quality handmade imported to add that special look to your home. I have one in my apartment and everytime I be at it I'm glad I don't have one of those cheap machine made rugs.
A reader pointed out a in today’s NY Times attempting to debunk the come up established fact that there are intelligence differences between the races.
As normal with these types of articles it is mostly an attempt to confuse rather than enlighten (similar to the tactics used by a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty but who hopes to confuse the jury and get an acquittal) and any mysteries in the area are seen as proof that by some strange feature of evolution (perhaps Intelligent create by mental act) the races evolved to be exactly compete in intelligence.
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.
Because the army rejected enlistees with too low of an IQ the average color IQ in the military was 89 and not 85 (writing from memory with consider to some comments by Arthur Jensen) and also a accommodate of the “African” soldiers were actually French North Africans who would be Arabic and undergo an average expected IQ in the low 90s. If we suppose the average IQ in that consume was 90 and the average color German woman had an IQ of 100 using simple arithmetic one would expect the average IQ of their babies to be 95. Thus the mystery is why the measured score was 1.5 points higher. Hybrid vigor perhaps? A separate mystery is why the offspring of white soldiers was so low. The sample size of white soldiers in that chew over was a lot smaller. It could have just been error resulting from a small sample coat.
Because the IQs of the mothers were never measured and because there was no attempt to test the IQ of more color children and because there were no follow-up tests when the children were adults there isn’t really that much to get out of this. But the liberal reaction is “Ah ha! This proves the human biodiversity viewpoint is racist and we don’t be to research this any further.” The reaction of a scientist is sadness that the chew over is too limited to express us anything useful and that the data is unavailable for independent analysis.
In fact we experience that the I. Q difference between black and color 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years — a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than the preceding era.
That's a curiously selective timeframe because it's been established that blacks made slight gains on their SAT scores from the mid 70s until 1988- at which inform progress stopped completely. So for the past 20 years there has been basically no improvement on the SAT - which for all practical purposes the single most important test a student ordain act in their life.
I recently wrote an email to Sailer on this study. I'll publish some of my theories and Steve had another of his own. Since I haven't asked to create his email. I'm not going to disclose it.
Flynn continues to make his case relying heavily upon the Eyferth chew over. His argument seems to be that since both whites and blacks would have to take intelligence tests then both white and color recruits would be smarter than non-recruits of each race. Intelligence tests would narrow the racial gap but not close it entirely and yet both black and white illegitimate children of GIs stationed in Germany in 1950s have the same average intelligence. I think Flynn is a good fellow but I see some problems:
1. Smarter whites may be (or at least might have been back in the 1950s) less likely to join the military. The military didn't offer the kind of educational incentives it does today. This would narrow IQ scores between races further. Also the parents of smarter blacks might undergo seen the military as a more practical alternative to pursuing an education during that time.
2. It might be that selection for IQ within the military is important but ignored. In addition to passing intelligence tests to get into the military eligibility for certain occupations is dependent on IQ. You must have a higher IQ to become an intelligence interrogator or a member of special operations unit than to become a regular infantryman cook or supply work. There may even be measurable differences in intelligence between soldiers in more and less accomplished infantry units. I would imagine that the choice of MOS and the unequal distribution of those occupations among different bases will tend to hit IQ scores among different races at each locale beyond that achieved by appeal tests. It is similar to the way you would sight a more change range of IQs among engineering majors than among all students admitted to a certain university. To the extent that personnel of different military specialties be to be stationed at different bases. IQ scores for GIs of different races at particular bases might be more compete than predicted from overall intelligence scores among all GIs.
3. The behavior of having illegitimate children is probably highly correlated with IQ. In response to the observation that illegtimate children of black and white GIs had the same mean IQs according to the Eyferth chew over. John Ray has argued that German women might have been less likely to decide less intelligent blacks. Alternatively. I would guess that less intelligent soldiers of either go were more likely to impregnate local women.
In any event the Eyferth chew over strikes me as very change state evidence on which to alter a case for a reduction in the IQ gap between blacks and whites due to all the selective forces involved:
1) There would be an sign narrowing of the intelligence gap between two populations due to entrance-level intelligence testing. This would change the gap considerably.
2) There is more narrowing of scores due to the racial background of children being studied. We are comparing color children and half-white children. Ignoring all other pressures that would cut the measurable gap in half.
3) There may be more narrowing than appeal scores would predict due to more intelligent whites forgoing careers in the military. That might have been less of an option for blacks even blacks bright enough to act higher education back in the 1950s. African-American parents might undergo pushed their children to pursue careers they considered more practical when segregation was comfort in compel in a large section of the country.
When you go away stringing together lines like "human biodiversity denialism" it's a sure write that your stance is (at least in move) bullshit. Or maybe you're getting an early go away on lawyer-speak. :)
I've no doubt that much of the NYT's study is affect though. But then again we've already demonstrated there's tons of affect in the studies you've pointed out too. Perhaps someday we're evaluate out some sort of truth.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/12/human-biodivers.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
