Race and Intelligence - Page 2

[Infarction]

I've also noticed throughout my high school career that the minorities got special privileges and advantages when it came to the college application process. Affirmative Action and other government policies/funding helped primarily students of a certain race. Is this not racism? If anything, the minorities should be appalled with these special initiatives. Basically, the government is saying minority students are not good enough.. not smart enough.. not 'white enough', and thus need special treatment from the government. This is complete bull crap, and is fueling racial tensions. Colleges should not have a goal for 'racial diversity', but should instead admit the students that are best qualified.

Affirmative action is a double-edged sword, and it cuts people on both sides. On the one hand, yes, it's basically legislated racism against the majority, which inspires some resentment. On the other, it does ensure that some portion of the, as I've mentioned a few times, traditionally underclassed and therefore underprivileged class is able to acquire the same higher education as the more privileged class, which is great as a lot of them deserve it. America's privilege tends to lie with the white population (to be fair: there are whites who are poor and there are non-whites who are wealthy). Also, Aff. Action was established at a time when racism was still very much a problem in this country. It may still be in certain areas; I know my own experiences have been quite sheltered from the African American community at least (due to low AA population here; on the other hand, there are a large number of Asians and Indians here, but then again, they haven't had the same problems as the AAs have).

[edit: forgot about this bit] I do agree that enforcing racial diversity is a dead weight to carry around. But a lot of those problems are probably regional as well. It's sad that racial walls in the US (and possibly elsewhere) still exist to the point that companies bring up how much their hiring process considered racial background. One might have expected that we'd reach a level of racial equality after so many decades that a true meritocracy might dominate the hiring process. Alas, that time is yet to come... Then again, maybe it has occurred, but companies are just going on and on about the racial issue even though they are hiring solely based on merit. I don't know how HR departments make their decisions so I can't say for sure one way or the other, but the first half of this paragraph is the perspective I get.

[EnderX]

[edit: forgot about this bit] I do agree that enforcing racial diversity is a dead weight to carry around. But a lot of those problems are probably regional as well. It's sad that racial walls in the US (and possibly elsewhere) still exist to the point that companies bring up how much their hiring process considered racial background. One might have expected that we'd reach a level of racial equality after so many decades that a true meritocracy might dominate the hiring process. Alas, that time is yet to come... Then again, maybe it has occurred, but companies are just going on and on about the racial issue even though they are hiring solely based on merit. I don't know how HR departments make their decisions so I can't say for sure one way or the other, but the first half of this paragraph is the perspective I get.

From what I've read, in many ways, the companies do still tend to consider race in their hire/fire decisions. This is not because of any inherent racial bias for or against any group on the part of the company, however, it's out of fear of getting sued on racial grounds.

Example: Company 'A' hires two people. One is white, the other is black. Except for this difference, they have the same aptitude for the job. However, one of the two is willing to work hard at the job, while the other prefers to laze along.

If the lazy one is the white guy, then the company will probably fire him. However, if the lazy one is the black guy, the company may choose not to fire him, on the grounds that if fired, he may choose to sue the company for his termination. Rather than admitting it's his own fault for his laziness and unwillingness to do the job, he may claim he was fired for his skin color. Given that a sizable portion of the American population would be willing to buy that explanation without looking deeper into the issue (<sarcasm>after all, everyone 'knows' that corporate entities are evil, cruel, racist monstrosities, right?</sarcasm>), the company may decide that the effort to get rid of the dead weight employee will cost more than the removal of the employee is worth.
Yes, I realize the white guy could try to bring suit against the company for false termination, should he be the lazy one. But it's not as likely to work, unless he could somehow show a bias against white people existed within the company, and most of the populace doesn't seem to think that's a possibility, as far as I can tell.

> Do you consider the quote below racist?
> The AVERAGE black person is less intelligent than the AVERAGE white person

Fixed...

The AVERAGE black person can run faster than the AVERAGE white person.

>and my IQ is a 135
Is that supposed to be good? That's not impressive. Bah ha ha ha.

[Infarction]

If the lazy one is the white guy, then the company will probably fire him. However, if the lazy one is the black guy, the company may choose not to fire him, on the grounds that if fired, he may choose to sue the company for his termination. Rather than admitting it's his own fault for his laziness and unwillingness to do the job, he may claim he was fired for his skin color. Given that a sizable portion of the American population would be willing to buy that explanation without looking deeper into the issue (<sarcasm>after all, everyone 'knows' that corporate entities are evil, cruel, racist monstrosities, right?</sarcasm>), the company may decide that the effort to get rid of the dead weight employee will cost more than the removal of the employee is worth.

Yeah, that's a definite problem. And it happens by gender as well. Here in WA, employers at least have a 90 day period in which they can fire a new employee without cause. But it's still really difficult to fire an employee after that. A paving company I used to work for was in a lawsuit for firing one of their female truck drivers. Their reason was that she'd been in 2 accidents in the last 2 years, but she was suing on the grounds that it was based on her gender. The fact that it actually got filed shows how sad things are...

[darkagn]

The Oxford Dictionary defines racism as:

1 a a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prjudice based on this.
b antagonism towards other races, esp. as a result of this.
2 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.

IMHO Josh's discussion, entitled Race and Intelligence is racist according to 2 above. I find this discussion inherently offensive and find it distasteful that the administrators of daniweb have not closed it.

[joshSCH]

No one is being racist or claiming any race is intrinsically superior than any other. This thread is just posting a new SCIENTIFIC theory that perhaps certain traits such as intelligence, athleticism, etc. are genetic-based and different among races. Perhaps environments are not the only factor which attributes to the difference in average IQ scores among races.

[happygeek]

We have not closed it becuase it has remained for the most part an intelligent discussion about the subject matter rather than a one-sided rant.

However, we are keeping a close eye on this thread and it will be closed if need be.

[Dani]

> 2 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.

As I've mentioned early on in this thread, I do not agree with this at all, and this thread will be locked if the discussion goes down that route.

However, I do think it's interesting to discuss real world concerns about how race plays a role in getting hired at a company, how racial tensions still exist in corporate America, the differences in race and gender when choosing a career, etc.

I am okay with this thread and the discussion of such taboo topics as long as it is definitely kept at a very mature level.

[scru]

Just a little input with no scientific backing whatsoever.

I'm from the Caribbean, so I'm not African American. However, we came from the same genetic background (Africa).

Now, I can tell you that what you are saying is the exact reverse of what happens in my country. Although I've not witnessed it nearly enough to base a scientific theory on it (not really my cup of tea anyway), caucasians in our system do not thrash all the other races in grades, and those that I have known performed on an average/below average basis. So I guess if I were easily swung by such statistics I would say that white people are generally dumber than black people.

However, as a thinking person, I can see that there are actually FACTORS that influence these sorts of situations. I would say that it depends on socio-economic backgrounds, place, culture, blah and blak. I would also say that the genetic background has very little to do with it.

[jasimp]

What Scru said was very interesting. It got me thinking on the majority race in an area. Also if they immigrated to a place then they are most likely a minority and more likely to have a less money, giving them more reason to be upset and rebellious towards school. Seeing as Scru said that the people who are a minority in his country are caucasian, they most likely immigrated there, have a higher chance of having less money, and of being rebellious towards school.

[joshSCH]

We have not closed it becuase it has remained for the most part an intelligent discussion about the subject matter rather than a one-sided rant.

However, we are keeping a close eye on this thread and it will be closed if need be.

Okay, but perhaps instead of outright locking the thread you could just delete the offensive posts ;-)

> 2 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.

As I've mentioned early on in this thread, I do not agree with this at all, and this thread will be locked if the discussion goes down that route.

However, I do think it's interesting to discuss real world concerns about how race plays a role in getting hired at a company, how racial tensions still exist in corporate America, the differences in race and gender when choosing a career, etc.

I am okay with this thread and the discussion of such taboo topics as long as it is definitely kept at a very mature level.

Yes, I'd like to shift the discussion to what Dani mentioned. I do not think that it's fair at all, especially in the case of the A&M head coaching position, that race should play a role in employment. Requiring a quota of a certain amount of people of each race to be interviewed and considered for the job is racist in itself. Why not just hire the best person for the job? You know that if a certain company did this, and suppose they hired a majority of white people.. then they would be sued for discrimination. It is awful how the excuse 'racist' is used on such a day-to-day basis to guarantee minority jobs. The same is true for many colleges nationwide. It is as simple as this: Student A scores higher than Student B, but student B gets accepted over student A. Is this fair? Doesn't seem like it is to me..

If America keeps its goals for diversity in place, there can only be two outcomes. Either the entire American culture will assimilate, and there will be simply one race OR racial tensions will lead to a sort of race war. As the former seems a long ways off it is more likely that the latter will occur. Continuation of affirmative action will only anger those who get fired or turned away for the less-qualified, diverse individual. I propose the best way to end this turmoil would be to eliminate the question of race on all applications. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.. The U.S. government needs to make it ILLEGAL to ask for race on any official job/college application. Thus, companies could no longer hire based on race.. ultimately eliminating this problem..

[Ancient Dragon]

There was a huge dispute here in St Louis over the past three years because the black fire chief refused to make any promotions based on a required test. Here is the full article.. The fire chief claimed the tests were racially biased. Earlier this year the St Louis mayor demanded the fire chief make promotions, he stood his ground and refused, so the Mayor fired him and promoted a white man to firechief. The new chief started making promotions, and guess what -- all but one of the 30 promotions were white! That tells me that the black fire chief was probably right and the tests were indeed racially biased.

[joshSCH]

Either that or the black fire chief was racist, and knew that only the white people would get promoted.. thus he refused to use the tests and claimed they were racist.

You guys think too one-sided. There are plenty of black racists in this world too.

[Sturm]

>However, we are keeping a close eye on this thread and it will be closed if need be.

That's nice. Trying to keeping the discussion "in check" by posting inane threats won't help.

[jasimp]

I don't really see how it is an empty threat. They could very easily close it if they wished to.

[jbennet]

racism is a dumb word. Some races are naturally better than others at some things and you are an idiot to deny it

e.g some races are naturally developed to cope with certain environmental factors (heat,cold,altitude,disease, distance to food) than others.

Its natural selection. Races are not equal because they each evolved to meet varying demands in order to survive.

my 2 cents as a biologist and human being

P.S josh you are wrong. Where I live females do significantly better than males. I agree with dani that this is because they mature earlier

[johnnyjohn20]

.

[briansmall]

I would bet that people who score higher on IQ tests are also the ones that think it means something important.

[kv79]

I must write this.
I do not believe what man say,but what man do.

note : (or woman)

[joshSCH]

racism is a dumb word. Some races are naturally better than others at some things and you are an idiot to deny it

e.g some races are naturally developed to cope with certain environmental factors (heat,cold,altitude,disease, distance to food) than others.

Its natural selection. Races are not equal because they each evolved to meet varying demands in order to survive.

my 2 cents as a biologist and human being

I agree with this first portion of your post.

P.S josh you are wrong. Where I live females do significantly better than males. I agree with dani that this is because they mature earlier

Despite the fact that you didn't quote anything so I don't know what you are referring to, I will assume it was this post:

... Women are more successful than men in college in what major? I can guarantee that this is not the case in engineering. Besides, for you to make any claim like that you need EVIDENCE. Also, there is statistical evidence that the average man's iq is the same as the average woman's

But, as you can see from this quote, I was specifically talking about one college major. Although I do not disagree with Dani, I do believe her theory applies more to high school (Which is what your schooling would equate to in the U.S., jbennet). In college, well particularly at my college, the white male dominates the engineering major. Also, most male students have their long-term goals set by now.

So, before you blatantly call someone wrong, you should definitely do a bit of research... or at least make an appropriate comparison.

[Ancient Dragon]

This was a study of students in 5th, 6th and 7th grades showed that girls had significantly higher grades in math than boys. But they attribute the differences to girls approached studying better than boys -- boys are more interested in disruptive behavor (boys will be boys) while girls tend to take education more seriously.

[jwenting]

The study that showed racial differences in the outcome of IQ testing was actually genuine.
The outrage about it was not based on its scientific merits but on the conclusions, which were not politically acceptable.

Whether the study was performed correctly and the results interpreted correctly never even came im Frage, the very fact that the study was performed and had that outcome was considered wrong and therefore the study had to be suppressed.

As AD says, there's a cultural thing involved here.
Just as with girls of a certain age doing better overall in school than their male peers because of their attitude towards school and study, the same may well be true for different racial groups as well.
But unless and until studies are performed and the results verified independently and published without political bias towards a specific outcome, we'll never know.
What I do know from personal experience is that as I went further up the educational ladder I saw the racial and sexual mix change drastically and become ever more homogeneously Caucasian male (male because of the topic of study I engaged in, other topics at the same level were predominantly female but all were mostly Caucasian).
That said, the black and (especially) Asian students we did have performed on the most part admirably, often better than their Caucasian peers.
To give some numbers: in my yeargroup at university there were 2 women, and 1 black guy in a group of about a hundred total. Based on a cross section of the population that should have been 50 women and 10 blacks.
Of those about a third washed out. Neither the black nor either of the women did. Given a racial average, one of the women or the black should have washed out.
So using just those numbers you could conclude that blacks and women on average are less smart than Caucasian males but those that are smart are very smart indeed.

This can be traced back in large part to cultural differences. Children tend to rise not much above the level of education of their parents.
As most blacks and north Africans here arrived in the 1960s and '70s as adults with no or very limited education, it's unsurprising that most of their children in the 1980s and '90s didn't rise much above that.
This would show up as low IQ scores, as IQ tests are influenced by education (higher education teaches above all else modes of thinking which give rise to among other things higher IQ scores).

Whether the POTENTIAL to reach those high levels is present in blacks to a lesser degree than in other race groups I can't say. The US system (where blacks have been present far longer and have risen in larger numbers to higher education) does seem to indicate that maybe this is so, as there too the percentage of blacks that achieve university degrees or equivalent is lower than the percentage of society as a whole they make up.
But there too (and maybe to an even larger degree than here) culture plays a part.
Black gang culture for example is very strong and draws in many youths who are potentially bright enough to achieve university degrees. That culture is a massive block preventing those people from going to university and getting those degrees, instead focussing them on a life of crime which often results in an early death or longterm prison sentence.

So we have a statistical analysis which shows on average lower intelligencen among a population group but doesn't try to explain that result. A study which is attacked based on the facts presented rather than on the merits of its analysis of those facts with no scientific basis to the analysis.

[jwenting]

I would bet that people who score higher on IQ tests are also the ones that think it means something important.

mostly not. As with most such things the people who do best at them are often the ones who realist how pointless they are because they recognise the futility and gaps in the testing the best.

[jbennet]

I agree with this first portion of your post.
Despite the fact that you didn't quote anything so I don't know what you are referring to, I will assume it was this post:

But, as you can see from this quote, I was specifically talking about one college major. Although I do not disagree with Dani, I do believe her theory applies more to high school (Which is what your schooling would equate to in the U.S., jbennet.

So, before you blatantly call someone wrong, you should definitely do a bit of research... or at least make an appropriate comparison.

Here females get on average significantly higher grades than males in the core subjects of Maths, Science and English at GCSE - these 3 subjects are taken by all students ( GCSEs are "high school" finishing exams, taken at age 16) and also get significantly higher grades in the subjects they opted to do, as well as later in education

From the guardian newspaper:

Of 5.6million GCSE results, taken by more than 600,000 students, girls achieved a C grade or better in 62.4% of entries. Boys were nine percentage points behind at 53.4%. In only one subject, physics, do boys get more grades of C or above. In information technology, girls achieve 8.7 percentage points more A*-C grades.

Although the extensive use of coursework in GCSE is commonly thought to be a major reason for the gender divide, the department said figures did not always bear this out. Since 1994, when the coursework element in English was reduced from 100% to 40% of the exam, girls have outperformed boys by an average of 17 percentage points.

From the BBC:

The convenor of the Joint Council for General Qualifications, which issued the results, John Milner, said this indicated that GCSEs were "a stable qualification".

"Not a tremendous amount is happening to it," he added - a comment on the big changes in A-levels which resulted in a jump in the pass rate last week.

But he said the gender gap was "clearly an issue".

The difference at grades A* to C, which had narrowed a little last year to 8.9 percentage points, has risen again to nine points, with 62.4% of girls' exam entries achieving the top grades and 53.4% of boys'.

Even in the "boys' toys" subject - information technology - the girls are doing better. The gap has gone up from 6.4 points to 8.7.

[joshSCH]

Here females get on average significantly higher grades than males in the core subjects of Maths, Science and English at GCSE - these 3 subjects are taken by all students ( GCSEs are "high school" finishing exams, taken at age 16) and also get significantly higher grades in the subjects they opted to do, as well as later in education

Yes, which is high school.. and further proves my point. Thanks.

[joshSCH]

The study that showed racial differences in the outcome of IQ testing was actually genuine.
The outrage about it was not based on its scientific merits but on the conclusions, which were not politically acceptable.

Whether the study was performed correctly and the results interpreted correctly never even came im Frage, the very fact that the study was performed and had that outcome was considered wrong and therefore the study had to be suppressed.

As AD says, there's a cultural thing involved here.
Just as with girls of a certain age doing better overall in school than their male peers because of their attitude towards school and study, the same may well be true for different racial groups as well.
But unless and until studies are performed and the results verified independently and published without political bias towards a specific outcome, we'll never know.
What I do know from personal experience is that as I went further up the educational ladder I saw the racial and sexual mix change drastically and become ever more homogeneously Caucasian male (male because of the topic of study I engaged in, other topics at the same level were predominantly female but all were mostly Caucasian).
That said, the black and (especially) Asian students we did have performed on the most part admirably, often better than their Caucasian peers.
To give some numbers: in my yeargroup at university there were 2 women, and 1 black guy in a group of about a hundred total. Based on a cross section of the population that should have been 50 women and 10 blacks.
Of those about a third washed out. Neither the black nor either of the women did. Given a racial average, one of the women or the black should have washed out.
So using just those numbers you could conclude that blacks and women on average are less smart than Caucasian males but those that are smart are very smart indeed.

This can be traced back in large part to cultural differences. Children tend to rise not much above the level of education of their parents.
As most blacks and north Africans here arrived in the 1960s and '70s as adults with no or very limited education, it's unsurprising that most of their children in the 1980s and '90s didn't rise much above that.
This would show up as low IQ scores, as IQ tests are influenced by education (higher education teaches above all else modes of thinking which give rise to among other things higher IQ scores).

Whether the POTENTIAL to reach those high levels is present in blacks to a lesser degree than in other race groups I can't say. The US system (where blacks have been present far longer and have risen in larger numbers to higher education) does seem to indicate that maybe this is so, as there too the percentage of blacks that achieve university degrees or equivalent is lower than the percentage of society as a whole they make up.
But there too (and maybe to an even larger degree than here) culture plays a part.
Black gang culture for example is very strong and draws in many youths who are potentially bright enough to achieve university degrees. That culture is a massive block preventing those people from going to university and getting those degrees, instead focussing them on a life of crime which often results in an early death or longterm prison sentence.

So we have a statistical analysis which shows on average lower intelligencen among a population group but doesn't try to explain that result. A study which is attacked based on the facts presented rather than on the merits of its analysis of those facts with no scientific basis to the analysis.

An overall great post imo..

As for the portion regarding intelligence and one's parents socioeconomic status, I do believe children often rise above the education of their parents. Remember the American Dream? Although many people now believe it is impossible to attain, many wealthy and intellectual individuals did arrive in a state of poverty, but worked hard and later became very successful. Benjamin Franklin immediately comes to mind.. I think it is idiotic for people to blame their situation on what their parents did or on the past. Slavery is over and done with so people need to quit using that as an excuse. Take responsibility and initiative.. if these poor black individuals who grew up in a shady environment would stop blaming everyone else, and strive for personal satisfaction.. they could be just as successful as anyone. I do agree that they experience a bad childhood, but if they really wanted education bad enough then they would seek it. There are many poor people who grew up in terrible environments, yet they did not give up on their dreams and thus were very successful in life.

[sneekula]

You have to be female and you have to be White or Asian. Looks like a black male never stands a chance to get a decent IQ score then. I guess, I can live perfectly fine without it.

[jbennet]

Yes, which is high school.. and further proves my point. Thanks.

no

as well as later in education

[joshSCH]

>as well as later in education

Unfortunately, you have no evidence for later than 'high school' equivalent education. That statement is ambiguous. Also, there could potentially be regional differences between the U.S. and the UK.

[jbennet]

Unfortunately, you have no evidence for later than 'high school' equivalent education

Yes i do. at A level (college age 16-18) females do signifantly better too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3148375.stm

From the bbc

In fact, at the top end the gender gap is widening, with the growth in the number of girls gaining grades A to C being greater than the rate among boys.

This year, 70.7% of grades awarded to girls were in this category, up 2.3% from the previous year.

For boys, there was a rise of 2.2% to 63.8%, the Joint Council for General Qualifications, which represents exam boards, found.

Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said this was a reflection of girls' greater teenage maturity.

which is exactly what dani said

Also more females actually go into Post-High school education

The only major subject in which boys had a higher pass rate was German - 97.7%, compared with 97.3%.

The sexes were evenly matched in chemistry and business studies.

Overall, girls took more A-levels than boys - 404,855 compared with 345,682.

P.S why the neg rep for my last post scru??????Did you even read my post? It is a biologically sound conclusion that racism is a dumb word as some races are better than others at some things.

E.g most africans have a specific mutation in thier Red blood cells that enables them to be more relistant to malaria. This is passed on therough evolution due to natural selection (the ones who are less resistant die and cant pass on thier genes). Its classic darwinism.

Therefore, through science I conclude that SOME africans (a race) are better than say, SOME europeans (another race) at dealing with malaria and I stand by my conclusion that racism is a dumb word as neturally some races are better than others at some things

So, if you read that you will see that im saying that some africans have superior malaria resistance to some europeans. Does that make me a racist???? In the techincal sense yes as the defiition of racism is "the belief that one race is superior to another" but in reality NO. I am not a racist.

You are an idiot if you believe all the races are totally equal. We have each adapted to a seperate set of circumstances.

Also, note my use of the word SOME.