Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

You said that low correlations support a hereditarian explanation because any positive correlation supports you. I'm saying that the lower the correlation the more it supports an environmental explanation.

 

============================================================================================================
The cause for the black/white i.q. gap cannot at this time be proven one way or the other....scientifically. All the scientific mumbo jumbo can be interpreted in various ways and those with an agenda of course will interpret the data the way they want and either side can engage in the infamous so called 'cherry picking' aka finding specific cases or instances that support their theory.

However, I think simple logic dictates that the 'environment theory' being the cause of the gap is erroneous. Look at blacks in America....not that much difference in their environment than that of whites....even during the slave era.....all the pictures you see of actual slaves and there are many....you see them well fed, clothed and with adequate housing....in fact the case has been made that slaves had it better than the poor whites.....everything was provided for them.

The poor whites on the other hand suffered tremendously...especially if their crop did not come in...due to weather or whatever. The poor white sharecroppers....very little difference in the manner they subsisted and that of the black sharecroppers.

Yet, the i.q. gap here in America between whites and blacks exists....despite the fact that the majority of whites...for a very long time were little or no better off than the poor blacks financially....both groups had to work from 'can' to 'can't) aka daylight to dark...just to put food on the table and maintain some kind of shelter. Both poor whites and blacks often made their own clothes out of flour sacks.

If one were to do extensive research on the living conditions of whites vs. blacks they might find some minor differences but nothing that might cause a difference in intelligence.

In a nutshell......intelligence determines culture, evolution determines genetics which governs the development of the human genome and it's level of intelligence.

 

The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American, the team reports online today in The American Journal of Human Genetics. Latinos, meanwhile, carry an average of 18% Native American ancestry, 65.1% European ancestry (mostly from the Iberian Peninsula), and 6.2% African ancestry. At least 3.5% of European Americans carry African ancestry, though the averages vary significantly by state. In South Carolina and Louisiana, about 12% of European Americans have at least 1% African ancestry. In Louisiana, too, about 8% of European Americans carry at least 1% Native American ancestry.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

A 2014 study showed that African Americans are around quarter white on average and up to 12% of white Americans in the South have some African ancestry. I love this kind of admixture studies which shed light on who we really are.

 

What a bunch of crap. Black slaves were not allowed to read. That negates all of your nonsense about environmental parity between Blacks and Whites and shows that White slaves masters did not truly believe their own propaganda about racial inequality because if they did they wouldn't be threatened by Blacks being educated. Blacks are disproportionately poor because of slavery and segregation. Many Blacks have also been psychologically damaged by White racism. Poverty affects a number of social outcomes from where you go to school to your nutrition to your culture to your neighborhood quality to the type of parents you have and how well they raise you. Black culture customs were shaped and molded by White society and severely negatively impacted by White racism. Your evolutionary genetic rationale for the Black-White IQ gap has been thoroughly discredited and you simply have a racist perspective on the whole matter. The fact is that you don't know anything about evolution or genetics, not enough to make the kind of arguments you're making which is why you won't address my 7 lines of evidence supporting my position.

 

You think poor whites during the era of slavery were taught to read? Ill-literacy was widespread....the majority of poor whites got very little education until the development of the public school system and most of them that did go to school went to one room schoolhouses and usually dropped out long before graduation day....the level of education they got would have had no influence on i.q.


America has always had the poor and in huge numbers...... it was not until the industrial age began that a middle class of whites began to develop to any significant degree. In fact the first slaves in Colonial America were white



But from the inaccurate story of original settlement of the colony by inmates of debtors' prisons in England to the modern distortions of such writers as Margaret Mitchell, Flannery O' Connor, Erskine Caldwell, and James Dickey, the prevalence and depth of poverty are often exaggerated. Still, many of Georgia's early settlers were poor people seeking a better life. Many found it; some did not. As in the North and West, hardscrabble farms and rough frontier were fertile ground for poverty, and slums grew rapidly in urban areas as well. By the 1850s grim tenements for desperate Irish immigrants existed in Savannah, just as in Boston, Massachusetts, and New York City.
Although
Cotton sharecropper family in Macon County, 1937. The Great Depression did not end in Georgia until the United States entered World War II in 1941. Photograph by Dorothea Lange.Sharecropping Family, Macon County
slaves fared the worst by far, a minority of poor whites had a hard row to hoe, too. The disruptions of the Civil War (1861-65) and Reconstruction mired African Americans in a new poverty and dragged many more whites into a similar abyss. Sharecropping and tenant farming trapped families for generations, as did emerging industries, which paid low wages and imposed company-town restrictions. Once-proud yeomen frequently became objects of ridicule, and sometimes they responded angrily and even viciously, often taking vulnerable blacks as their targets. "Poor whites" (meaning, financially destitute) were increasingly labeled "poor white trash" (meaning, financially and genetically worse off than most) and worse; "cracker," "hillbilly," "clay eater," "linthead," "peckerwood," "buckra," and especially "redneck" only scratched the surface of rejection and slander.
Northerners and foreigners played this game, but the greatest hostility to poor whites came from their fellow southerners, sometimes blacks but more often upper-class whites. Not all white elites shared the general contempt for the poor. Before the Civil War Augustus Baldwin Longstreet sketched the foibles of ordinary, unpolished Georgians with humor, understanding, and even affection. Richard Malcolm Johnston's Georgia Sketches and Charles H. Smith's "Bill Arp" stories performed a similar service, but perhaps the most sensitive portrayal of poor whites in antebellum Georgia came in Caroline Miller's 1934 Pulitzer Prize–winning novel, Lamb in His Bosom, which described the struggle for existence on subsistence farms in the isolated wiregrass region of southeastern Georgia. In her heroes and heroines Miller saw her ancestors: plain, simple men and women who barely survived but never wavered and passed life and hope on to the next generation.
Generally, the view of poor white southerners grew more and more negative, especially in modern movies and television, which have often stressed the negative and even the grotesque while reaching huge audiences. Georgia has borne its full share of this stereotype of lower-class southern whites who share poverty status with immigrants, blacks, and other minorities. Worst yet, the image and reality of southern poverty sometimes seemed fixed or even growing.
Although the stereotype of the poor white southerner in the early twentieth century, as portrayed in popular media, was exaggerated and even grotesque, the problem of poverty was very real. The national mobilization of troops in World War I (1917-1 invited comparisons between the South and the rest of the country. Southern and Georgia whites had less money, less education, and poorer health than white Americans in general. Only southern blacks had more handicaps. In the 1920s matters became worse when the boll weevil devastated the South's cotton culture and its economy.
Although the Great Depression of the 1930s shook the whole national economy to its foundations, U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt isolated the already depressed South as an especially desperate economic problem. Erskine Caldwell, particularly in his phenomenal best-selling novels, Tobacco Road (1932) and God's Little Acre (1933), provided the most indelible impressions of rural poverty in the South and continued to do so in both stage and screen versions. Harry Crews's autobiography of his early days as part of a sharecropping family in Bacon County in southeastern Georgia, entitled A Childhood: The Biography of a Place (197, is an equally poignant depiction of white poverty in the 1930s, as is Rick Bragg's Ava's Man (2001), a portrait of Bragg's maternal grandfather and his children in and around Floyd County in the northwestern corner of the state.
World War II (1941-45) began the great economic revival for Georgia and the South. In and out of the armed forces, unskilled southern whites, and many African Americans as well, were trained for industrial and commercial work they had never dreamed of attempting, much less mastering. Military camps grew like mushrooms, especially in Georgia, and big industrial plants began to appear across the once rural landscape. Soon, blue-collar families from every nook and cranny of old Georgia found their way to white-collar life in metropolitan areas like Atlanta. By the 1960s blacks had begun to share in this progress, but not all rural Georgians were beneficiaries of this recovery. Janisse Ray's Ecology of a Cracker Childhood (1999) describes her upbringing in a junkyard in Baxley in the 1960s and 1970s and the ways in which her family coped with the poverty that shaped their lives.
Such works remind us that although the late twentieth century was a time of unprecedented prosperity for Georgia, poverty is still endemic. Inadequate public schools, disintegrating families, high crime rates, urban decay, drugs, and many other problems present obstacles for many Georgians, but the old curse of poverty no longer seems inescapable.

 

Apparently you need a history lesson. Literacy rates were very high in America shortly before the Civil War. Most Whites received a formal education while at the same time it was illegal to educate Blacks. Black illiteracy was actually counted in official statistics lowering the literacy average of Southern states.

From Civil War America, 1850 To 1875 By Richard F. Selcer:





This obviously had a tremendous impact on the learning environment of African-Americans for many years. Not being able to read meant that Blacks had limited options for jobs which after freedom they were denied and then Blacks attended inferior schools with subpar education further stunting their intellectual growth. This idea that environmental differences can not fully explain racial differences in IQ is a fantasy concocted by White Supremacists who do not want to take ownership of how racist social policies have negatively impacted the world around them.

 

And....contrary to popular belief many blacks were taught to read and write by their masters..... Slaves
learned from parents, spouses, family members, and fellow slaves and some were even personally instructed by their masters or hired tutors. Slaveholders were inspired by Christian convictions to enable Bible reading among slaves and founded informal plantation schools on occasion. They needed literate slaves to do record-keeping.

In the North, black education was not forbidden. African Americans had greater access to formal schooling and had a better chance of basic reading and writing skills than Southern blacks and Southern Whites.Quakers played a great role in raising the literacy rates among Northern blacks by persistently promoting education programs in the years before and after the Revolutionary War.

Some Free Blacks even owned slaves......https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100527170657AAFlriK


America has always had the poor and in huge numbers...... it was not until the industrial age began that a middle class of whites began to develop to any significant degree. In fact the first slaves in Colonial America were white----- http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...rish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/-----

The majority of white immigrants paid for their trip to America by subjecting themselves to a economic system known as Indentured Servitude....of which the truth has never been taught...it was worse than black slavery....these whites basically had no rights and were often worked to death....their masters quite often kept them enslaved for life in defiance of the supposed 7 years they were supposedly allow to keep them as servants.

The bottom line: poverty for both whites and blacks was not all that different....political correctness and hollywood etc. have simply indoctrinated blacks into believing they suffered far worse than what they did....and definitely not that much worse than poor whites if any in fact and in many cases poor whites were treated worse than blacks ...specifically the so called indentured servants and the first white slaves in America.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754634/posts


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754634/posts


http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/index.php?id=228

 

New England was more devoted to education than was the South. Of the nation's 321 public high schools only 30 were in the South. In the South the sons of the poor were likely to receive no education. Illiteracy was more common in the South. Education there was more for the gentry, and teaching tended to be private.

Poor Whites.............https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_White

 

A positive correlation of White heritage to Black IQ means just that: When White heritage increases in Blacks, so does their IQ.

I failed to account the excuses that 'colorism' is the reason lighter skinned Blacks have higher IQ.

So, it is impossible to differentiate the cause of higher IQ correlating with greater White heritage in Blacks based on admixture studies alone.

 

The studies cited by Nisbett used 5 different types of designs to assess the degree of White ancestry in Blacks with high IQ. Colorism would have no affect in this situation since the studies are looking directly at Blacks that already have high IQ scores and seeing if there is a correlation between those with the highest IQs and White ancestry. The studies indicated significantly low correlations (0.01 to 0.20) meaning that the relationship between White ancestry and high IQ in Blacks was weak to virtually nonexistent. There was even a negative correlation. Contrary to what you are saying a low correlation means the relationship between two attributes is unlikely. Nisbett to be polite finds your interpretation to be dead wrong which is what I have been telling you for awhile. A high correlation say above 0.50 would support your argument but a low one supports mine.

The only problem I have with these studies is that there were done before modern genetic testing so there could be errors. I would like to see if the results could be replicated with modern techniques but given that 5 types of designs were used it is a significant finding that could only be falsified if modern testing comes to different results.

 

You have no background in statistics and are only further embarrassing yourself.

A low positive correlation does not support your argument; it weakly supports mine.

Your claim that I need a correlation coefficient greater than 0.50 is absurd on its face. That would mean any correlation must fall within 25% of the range to support an argument and 75% to oppose.

It doesn't take a genius to see how unbalanced your claim is.

Only a negative correlation supports your argument. Any positive correlation opposes your stance. This is so simple I'd expect this doesn't need an explanation.

Edit: a correlation <=0 would support your argument.

 

No, logically a weak association between two variables means they are not closely related. The lower the correlation coefficient the weaker the association. Having a correlation coefficient of 0.01 doesn't weakly support you it only represents a very weak association between two variables. The stronger the correlation the more it supports you. If we are to interpret the correlation values correctly we must ask the question, "How strong is the correlation between high Black IQ and White ancestry? Is it High, Moderate or Low?" If it is high it supports your side. The higher the better. If it is moderate it doesn't support either side. If it is low it supports my side. The lower the better. If it is zero it supports my side even more and if it is negative it not only supports my side it could support an opposite conclusion (e.g. White ancestry makes Blacks dumber). This is basic statistics. Nisbett was so baffled by your argument he dismissed you as an idiot and didn't bother to explain himself any further.

I will try other scholars to get a more authoritative response but in the mean time here is a website on correlation that says basically what I am saying.

http://www.psychology.emory.edu/clinical/bliwise/Tutorials/SCATTER/scatterplots/effect.htm

 

The paragraph you quoted doesn't support what you're saying; it contradicts what you've said.

Irritatingly, you repeat back to me what I just said in an attempt to show you're saying something I haven't already said.

A positive correlation between White heritage and IQ means just that: Increasing White heritage in Blacks increases Black IQ. A low positive correlation simply means Black IQ will not rise as much for the same amount of White heritage as a higher positive correlation would.

What don't you understand?

Your claim that I only get 25% of the range while you get 75% is absolute nonsense.

Moreover, your quote confirms what I've been repeating to you the last few pages.

If the correlation coefficient for White heritage and Black IQ is 0.10, it means increasing White heritage increases Black IQ, but the trendline is flatter than if the correlation were 1.0.

As long as the correlation coefficient is positive, the trendline shows Black IQ increases with increasing White heritage.

If the correlation coefficient were 0.0, that would mean increasing White heritage does not increase Black IQ.

It's really that simple.

 

The quote doesn't contradict what I've said. It says that a correlation coefficient of 0.10 represents a weak or small association. So the correct conclusion for this discussion is that the correlation between high Black IQ and White ancestry is weak rather than strong or high. The weaker the correlation the more it supports the conclusion that high Black IQ and White ancestry are not closely related. A weak correlation is statistically insignificant. A strong correlation is statistically significant. Obviously a low correlation means a very slight statistical relationship which would be represented on a trendline but it doesn't support your overall conclusion that high Black IQ and White ancestry are closely related which would support a hereditarian interpretation.

The totality of the evidence from racial admixture studies supports an environmental interpretation for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap. White genes do not make Blacks smarter. There are 5 different types of designs that support this argument. The only way to refute this argument would be to do modern DNA testing and see if this research supports a different conclusion.

 

&#8220;The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed-Race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.&#8221;

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...erences-in-intelligence-how-i-changed-my-mind

 

Nice strawman. You're now changing my argument.


What I'm saying is that a 0.10 correlation for black iq and white heritage means increasing white heritage increases black iq.

That is all it means.

 

You already posted that source and I responded to it years ago:

You have repeatedly said that any positive correlation between Black IQ and White ancestry supports a hereditarian interpretation for the relationship between the attributes. I have said that a low correlation means they are not closely related. A low correlation is statistically insignificant thus it supports an environmental interpretation for the relationship between the attributes. It's very simple.

 

Black IQ estimates by state


1) Washington -- 94.5
2) Delaware -- 93.9
3) Massachusetts -- 93.6
3) Virginia -- 93.6
5) Alaska -- 93.5
6) New Jersey -- 92.9
7) Colorado -- 92.9
South Carolina -- 92.5
9) New Mexico -- 92.3
10) Kentucky -- 92.2
11) Texas -- 92.2
12) New York -- 92.1
13) Oregon -- 92.0
14) Arizona -- 91.9
15) North Carolina -- 91.5
16) West Virginia -- 91.5
17) Georgia -- 91.3
1 Iowa -- 91.3
1 Kansas -- 91.3
20) Maryland -- 91.2
21) Ohio -- 91.1
22) Michigan -- 91.1
23) Conneticut -- 90.6
24) Indiana -- 90.4
25) Pennsylvania -- 90.4
26) Missouri -- 90.4
27) Rhode Island -- 90.2
2 Louisiana -- 90.1
29) Minnesota -- 90.0
30) Illinois -- 89.8
30) Oklahoma -- 89.8
32) California -- 89.7
33) Florida -- 89.6
34) Wisconsin -- 89.5
35) Tennessee -- 89.3
36) Nebraska -- 89.0
37) Nevada -- 88.7
3 DC -- 88.6
39) Mississippi -- 88.5
40) Arkansas -- 88.0
41) Alabama -- 87.8

The relatively high scores jump out immediately to those who are familiar with the historical results of IQ testing by race. Adjusted for population, the average IQ estimate for black Americans comes to just under 91. Traditionally, African Americans have consistently scored around 85, and the gap between whites and blacks has held tenaciously at one standard deviation. So these estimates appear rather high. A few possibilities as to why:

- The black/white IQ gap may be narrowing. Flynn and Dickens argue that blacks have gained five or six points on whites over the last three decades, presumably spurred in part by better access to nutrition and healthcare. If accurate, that would put contemporary average African American IQ at 90 or 91, just as my estimates did.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2006/10/black-iq-estimates-by-state.html

The average African American IQ has risen to 91 from 85 within just a few decades because blacks are no longer segregated in America, freely attending formerly white schools. Perhaps African Americans will catch up with black Britons's average IQ (95) in the near future. Africans are genetically capable of reaching a high level of intelligence, if they're put in a right environment, and the national IQ average of Ireland was only 87 in the early 1970s.

 

Thing is...I.Q. Tests in general are flawed.

Take it from someone who scored very high.

Those who develop I.Q Tests do not take into account Social, Emotional, Empathic, Creative...etc...I.Q.

They are primarily developed to determine Analytic I.Q.

Now back when I was in High School we had to tale 3 Tests if we wanted to get into College.

#1. SAT's.

#2. Placement Tests.

#3. I.Q. Tests.

I scored 1580 on my SAT and I should have scored 1600 as one of their questions was wrong.

I scored in the top 0.001 of the Top 1% on the Placement Test thus in the 0.00001%.

And I do not discuss how high I scored on the I.Q. because when members read it they become almost aggressive as some attempt to try to justify their own intelligence but I scored very high.

But I KNOW....that I.Q. Test was flawed and created by a few GEEKS who never went on a date in their LIVES!!

AboveAlpha

 

Skewered data....and a politically correct blogger such as Audacious Epigone has no credibility. Contrary to their propaganda the black/white i.q. gap is increasing.

https://www.blogger.com/profile/07495507254628580077

The establishment is wasting huge financial resources trying to equalize the black/white i.q. gap and all they can do is to try and teach blacks how to take tests...and give them copies of tests to study and things to memorize and a few other tricks to try and help them raise their i.q. scores.....not even to mention all the cheating that is allowed.

What the powers that be need to do and something that could be done is to teach all these low i.q. kids job skills that they could use to make a living and thus improve their lives.....all this wasting of money trying to equalize them with white kids is a waste and nothing more than wishful thinking.... absolutely refusing to recognize reality and obsessed with the liberal narrative that all people are equal....guess who is paying for this nonsense?

This type of nonsense orginated in Marxist Russia....spent decades trying to make everyone equal....and they did not even have a racial problem...they were all white.....and they still could not make it work. Yet our so called progressives being not prone to objective analysis but absolutely dedicated to the myth of black victimhood poltics will not stop squandering the taxpayers hard earned dollars trying to prop up a fallacious objective......well...perhaps things will change when we get a new administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/americas-bigg...eating-scandal-unfolds-atlanta-213734183.html

On its face, the investigation tarnishes the 12-year tenure of Superintendent Beverly Hall, who was named US Superintendent of the Year in 2009 largely because of the school system's reported gains – especially in inner-city schools. She has not been directly implicated, but investigators said she likely knew, or should have known, what was going on. In her farewell address to teachers in June, Hall for the first time acknowledged wrongdoing in the district, but blamed other administrators.

When Teachers, Not Students, Do The Cheating

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/09/29/352494603/when-teachers-not-students-do-the-cheating

 

That's an ironic statement considering all of the bloggers you cited who lack credibility.

No, it isn't.

This source by the way was written about 10 years ago. According to Nisbett (personal communication) achievement tests indicate that the Black-White IQ gap has been reduced to about 7 or 8 IQ points.

 

Speaking of cheating, what about the enormous amounts of cheating that go on in Asian countries? How are we supposed to trust certain performance indicators with regard to race if cheating is so prevalent?

References
Cheating Concerns in Asia Regarding SAT Testing
Asia Exam Cheating: For Wealthy Students Seeking Entrance To US Colleges, Anything Goes
PISA: China is Cheating the World Student Rankings System
Riot after teachers try to stop pupils cheating
Chinese students found cheating to get into U.S. colleges

[HR][/HR]

Couple random notes on IQ tests and twin studies:
IQ tests are fundamentally flawed

The Trouble with Twin Studies

 

That's an outright lie when I have on multiple times said the cause for the positive correlation for black iq and white heritage cannot be determined.

I have qualified my position in response to Nisbett's excuses.

What I have said the last several posts is that a correlation of 0.10 results in higher iq.

A low positive correlation does not support your claim over mine; it weakly supports my claim.

A low, moderate or high correlation cannot be shown to be the result of colorism or genetics in any event.


Have you ever taken a statistics course?

 

So the iq differences between northeast Asians in the west and blacks and whites is due to cheating, too?

Your attempts at skewering northeast Asian iq are comedy in itself.

 

We're not talking about the cause we're talking about which interpretation the statistical facts support.

What excuses? Nisbett said that a low correlation supports an environmental interpretation over a hereditarian one.

Which doesn't make any sense. The question of interest is how closely related White ancestry is to high Black IQ. The answer is that their relationship is very weak.

It doesn't weakly support your claim. It shows that White ancestry and high Black IQ are not closely related supporting an environmental interpretation over a hereditarian one. On a range from -1 to +1 the closer a correlation coefficient is to 0 the less related two variables are. A correlation coefficient of zero means no relationship. A negative correlation could support a different conclusion about the relationship between the variables.

The studies Nisbett cited looked at multiple indicators of genetic ancestry including skin color, facial features, self-reports of European ancestry, mixed race children's IQ compared to IQs of children with two Black parents and blood group frequencies to determine if degree of European ancestry correlated strongly with high Black IQ. They showed weak to no correlation. Colorism can not be invoked in all of these studies to explain the relationship between White ancestry and Black IQ. The studies either strongly support a genetic/hereditarian interpretation or they don't. They do not.

Yes, however that is irrelevant to this conversation. If we want to settle the matter we can consult experts or websites with the appropriate information.

Nisbett called you an idiot for your interpretation. Nisbett is a psychologist. Assessing correlation data is part of his field. That's one expert in my favor. I will look for others.