Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Some think this will set a precedent. Others think this type of thing will slowly fade out of America as fewer an fewer cases like those will ever be brought up.




Full article here. I suggest you guys read it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit






What are your thoughts?

Here are questions that I have:

1. Why is it discrimination to have a test in place that has more people fail from a specific racial demographic when all humans are capable of the same intellectual potential?

2. Why do handicaps need to be given, based on race? Isn't hard work enough? Why do we alter things to "even" the odds to help a specific race?

3. Are not the statistical correlations of race-based failures a function of education which owes it success partially the subculture of the race in America, and the education opportunities via the public school systems which has a race-geographic correlation. (Where you live can be partially correlated to the level of education received.)


Discuss these three points. My hope is to gain enlightenment from my fellow posters. Hopefully, I can increase in understanding of how race "plays" in America.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some think this will set a precedent. Others think this type of thing will slowly fade out of America as fewer an fewer cases like those will ever be brought up.




Full article here. I suggest you guys read it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit






What are your thoughts?

Here are questions that I have:

1. Why is it discrimination to have a test in place that has more people fail from a specific racial demographic when all humans are capable of the same intellectual potential?

2. Why do handicaps need to be given, based on race? Isn't hard work enough? Why do we alter things to "even" the odds to help a specific race?

3. Are not the statistical correlations of race-based failures a function of education which owes it success partially the subculture of the race in America, and the education opportunities via the public school systems which has a race-geographic correlation. (Where you live can be partially correlated to the level of education received.)


Discuss these three points. My hope is to gain enlightenment from my fellow posters. Hopefully, I can increase in understanding of how race "plays" in America.

1. it isnt when the people failing in question are part of a highest socio economic strata. nurture plays a role in determining intellectual capacity vs intellectual potential

2. because the odds are made uneven by society in the first place by keeping certain races as a whole on a lower socioeconomic strata

3. function of education? yes. and educational oppurtunities and enviornments are already racially biased. and the subculture are an EFFECT of and not the cause of the socioeconomic bias of the country.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Why is it discrimination to have a test in place that has more people fail from a specific racial demographic when all humans are capable of the same intellectual potential?

Where did you develop that theory?

Besides even if everyone had exactly the same potential in exactly the same areas in exactly the same learning style it wouldn't mean they had the same opportunities and experiences. However, firefighters really should have gone through training so it doesn't apply here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. Why do handicaps need to be given, based on race? Isn't hard work enough? Why do we alter things to "even" the odds to help a specific race?

The inferior negroid races of Africa should be given opportunity so that they have the chance to become productive in modern civilization. People that are scared of the "metal lions" deserve assistance with their racial handicaps.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Are not the statistical correlations of race-based failures a function of education which owes it success partially the subculture of the race in America, and the education opportunities via the public school systems which has a race-geographic correlation. (Where you live can be partially correlated to the level of education received.)

Yes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where did you develop that theory?

Besides even if everyone had exactly the same potential in exactly the same areas in exactly the same learning style it wouldn't mean they had the same opportunities and experiences. However, firefighters really should have gone through training so it doesn't apply here.


I was under the assumption that all humans had the same intellectual potential, regardless of what actually happens in their nuturing.


Is this incorrect?


In other words, switch Scott Duncan Smith with Michael Tyrone Williams at birth, and William will end up "stupid" and Michael will end up just as intelligent and knowledgeable as Scott would have. Is that incorrect? Is there really different intellectual potentials across the races? I mean, sure there is actual differences, but are the potentials different?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The inferior negroid races of Africa should be given opportunity so that they have the chance to become productive in modern civilization. People that are scared of the "metal lions" deserve assistance with their racial handicaps.

Race is a handicap? I thought it was a benefit.


My bad.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes.

I think that humans are more than intelligent enough to shake the bonds of racial "handicaps". In fact, I don't like even calling it a "handicap."

If you can't work hard, then you deserve what you've worked for. If you work hard and are discriminated against, then sue. It doesn't matter what your race is...this is my personal opinion. Now, in the course of this discussion, I may be mature in my understanding...which is the point of this thread.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where did you develop that theory?

Besides even if everyone had exactly the same potential in exactly the same areas in exactly the same learning style it wouldn't mean they had the same opportunities and experiences. However, firefighters really should have gone through training so it doesn't apply here.



The inferior negroid races of Africa should be given opportunity so that they have the chance to become productive in modern civilization. People that are scared of the "metal lions" deserve assistance with their racial handicaps.



Yes.

was the "inferior race of negroids" sarcasm or r u actually serious?!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was under the assumption that all humans had the same intellectual potential, regardless of what actually happens in their nuturing.


Is this incorrect?


Yes, it's incorrect. We do not all have same intellectual capacity and many factors within evolution have contributed to that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was under the assumption that all humans had the same intellectual potential, regardless of what actually happens in their nuturing.

Is this incorrect?

In other words, switch Scott Duncan Smith with Michael Tyrone Williams at birth, and William will end up "stupid" and Michael will end up just as intelligent and knowledgeable as Scott would have. Is that incorrect? Is there really different intellectual potentials across the races? I mean, sure there is actual differences, but are the potentials different?

Current wisdom in measuring intelligence says that intelligence goes across many different factors.

I don't know who Scott Smith and Mike Williams are but if one of them is "wired" to have intelligence that makes him good at football and the other "wired" to be be good at mathematics they'll never reach the others level at that area. You can certainly teach both of them math and football but they're simply not going to be equals.

People with severe deficits/differences in learning ability (autism, downs, brain trauma) form the basis for the idea that everyone is in fact not equal. If these things exist at extreme levels it makes logical sense that more minor versions would also have effects.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Race is a handicap? I thought it was a benefit.

My bad.

I was kidding

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think that humans are more than intelligent enough to shake the bonds of racial "handicaps". In fact, I don't like even calling it a "handicap."

If you can't work hard, then you deserve what you've worked for. If you work hard and are discriminated against, then sue. It doesn't matter what your race is...this is my personal opinion. Now, in the course of this discussion, I may be mature in my understanding...which is the point of this thread.

You can work through many limitations you have but that doesn't mean you can necessarily reach the same level as someone who didn't or for whom it's simply easier.

Let's say that Alice and Bob (who can be of any race or mix of races) both set out to become mathematicians. If Alice is a genius and gets into college at 15 and Bob learns more slowly and doesn't get in until 20. Even if they have equal potential the gap will simply never be actual equals making that potential rather meaningless.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
was the "inferior race of negroids" sarcasm or r u actually serious?!

Curse you Poe's Law.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes, it's incorrect. We do not all have same intellectual capacity and many factors within evolution have contributed to that.

Are you saying this from a racial standpoint, eg Asians are smarter than Southern Africans?

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you saying this from a racial standpoint, eg Asians are smarter than Southern Africans?

Asians are super smart, they actually read instruction manuals.

Seriously.

Originally posted by grimify
Asians are super smart, they actually read instruction manuals.

Seriously.

It's extremely rare for me to read an instruction manual, yet I'm able to either put together or operate whatever it is I bought.

Ergo, I am smarter than super-smart Asians.

Good, Sodomayer or whatever her name is made a terrible decision in that case.

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

There's discrimination and that's all.

Hire the best person for the job and stop this garbage.

Originally posted by KidRock
Good, Sodomayer or whatever her name is made a terrible decision in that case.

She should be deported.

If not for this, for her gross incompetence.

Originally posted by The Scribe
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

There's discrimination and that's all.

Hire the best person for the job and stop this garbage.



She should be deported.

If not for this, for her gross incompetence.

Or for being blatantly racist..but we will let that slide, she is after all an oppressed minority held down by the white majority.

Originally posted by KidRock
Or for being blatantly racist..but we will let that slide, she is after all an oppressed minority held down by the white majority.

She's so oppressed by the white man.

Whoa is her.

If anyone seriously thinks that they will be deported with her.

Originally posted by The Scribe
She's so oppressed by the white man.

Whoa is her.

If anyone seriously thinks that they will be deported with her.

racist

Originally posted by Robtard
It's extremely rare for me to read an instruction manual, yet I'm able to either put together or operate whatever it is I bought.

Ergo, I am smarter than super-smart Asians.

Not a chance.

Originally posted by KidRock
racist

Originally posted by KidRock
Or for being blatantly racist..but we will let that slide, she is after all an oppressed minority held down by the white majority.

Don't forget that she's also another victim of the malecentric maleocracy!

Originally posted by dadudemon






What are your thoughts?

Here are questions that I have:

1. Why is it discrimination to have a test in place that has more people fail from a specific racial demographic when all humans are capable of the same intellectual potential?

2. Why do handicaps need to be given, based on race? Isn't hard work enough? Why do we alter things to "even" the odds to help a specific race?

3. Are not the statistical correlations of race-based failures a function of education which owes it success partially the subculture of the race in America, and the education opportunities via the public school systems which has a race-geographic correlation. (Where you live can be partially correlated to the level of education received.)


Discuss these three points. My hope is to gain enlightenment from my fellow posters. Hopefully, I can increase in understanding of how race "plays" in America.

I might offer a fuller response later but breakfast awaits: It is not simply the color of a person's skin but the history that comes with the specific people that might determine why these things are in place.

I do believe that I would not have been able to go to college has certain measures for black Americans been put in place following the civil rights movement which helped my parents' generation do well (this is also a complex statement but just work with me for now).

In general, minorities are given hard times in different nations history which is why there is a bit a favor given to them because they are not as likely to have the same standard of living given the same conditions (statistically). Of course the point is to get to the point where this is no longer needed but we are still some decades away from that in the U.S. , not just with black Americans and white Americans but all people. It would be foolish to say that discrimination no longer exist, but that is the fault of everyone.

This country still lacks open, honest discussion so everyone gets offended. After those discussions can be had, tons of progress can be made and this sort of shit will no longer be needed. Speaking honestly, I do not believe it's coming in my lifetime.

Lawyers are now saying that making White people a race has turned discrimination law into a minefield:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit

Originally posted by The Scribe
She's so oppressed by the white man.

Whoa is her.

If anyone seriously thinks that they will be deported with her. Do you mean "woe"? As in sorrow?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you mean "woe"? As in sorrow?

Whoa: a cry to call attention from a distance, 1623

No one catches things like that. I will give you that much.



http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9939/thatsracist2.gif

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Current wisdom in measuring intelligence says that intelligence goes across many different factors.

I don't know who Scott Smith and Mike Williams are but if one of them is "wired" to have intelligence that makes him good at football and the other "wired" to be be good at mathematics they'll never reach the others level at that area. You can certainly teach both of them math and football but they're simply not going to be equals.

One is caucasian, one is African American.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People with severe deficits/differences in learning ability (autism, downs, brain trauma) form the basis for the idea that everyone is in fact not equal. If these things exist at extreme levels it makes logical sense that more minor versions would also have effects.

No, everyone is not equal. That wasn't my point. We are getting off track.

To make it more literal for you, I was not referring to those born with obvious mental disabilities.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was kidding

So was I. I was being both sarcastic and cynical.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can work through many limitations you have but that doesn't mean you can necessarily reach the same level as someone who didn't or for whom it's simply easier.

Let's say that Alice and Bob (who can be of any race or mix of races) both set out to become mathematicians. If Alice is a genius and gets into college at 15 and Bob learns more slowly and doesn't get in until 20. Even if they have equal potential the gap will simply never be actual equals making that potential rather meaningless.

This is a given.

But how does that change that humans, regardless of race, have the same average potential?

Find the "least intelligent" tribe in Africa or South America. Take one of their babies at birth, raise it with an excellent Western education, and it should come out more intelligent than the average white person in America. Agreed?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Curse you Poe's Law.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

Indeed. You should have used a smilie.





Originally posted by The Scribe
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

There's discrimination and that's all.

Hire the best person for the job and stop this garbage.

This is my belief, as well. Handicapping requirements to accomodate others brings down everyone to their level when the opposite is necessary. They need to come up and be on level.

I hate white people.

White men win a "discrimation" case.


White men always win.

They win, but they cant jump.

Originally posted by chithappens
I might offer a fuller response later but breakfast awaits: It is not simply the color of a person's skin but the history that comes with the specific people that might determine why these things are in place.

Agreed. I'm off the opinion that nurture plays a much larger role in "intelligence" and educational motivation, on the whole, than does genetics.

Originally posted by chithappens
I do believe that I would not have been able to go to college has certain measures for black Americans been put in place following the civil rights movement which helped my parents' generation do well (this is also a complex statement but just work with me for now).

No, I understand. I agree. Had the Civil Rights movement not occurred at all and we were still segregated and you "just had to tak it", you wouldn't have gotten an education as nice as yours is.

Originally posted by chithappens
In general, minorities are given hard times in different nations history which is why there is a bit a favor given to them because they are not as likely to have the same standard of living given the same conditions (statistically). Of course the point is to get to the point where this is no longer needed but we are still some decades away from that in the U.S. , not just with black Americans and white Americans but all people. It would be foolish to say that discrimination no longer exist, but that is the fault of everyone.

I agree, somewhat.

I think that the standards should be raised and no exceptions should be made for anyone. While this occurs, we could dissolve Medicare/Medicaid/SS and use a third of the money for those programs to help with education in many forms. (Public, charters schools, grants, etc.)

Originally posted by chithappens
This country still lacks open, honest discussion so everyone gets offended. After those discussions can be had, tons of progress can be made and this sort of shit will no longer be needed. Speaking honestly, I do not believe it's coming in my lifetime.

This could be true. However, with cybernetics and neural interfaces being a literal reality, now, an education will no longer be necessary, before long. You'll just purchase knowledge. This is highly likely to occur in our lifetimes. (You and I are about the same age.) This will null the race problem, for the most part, when these technologies become cheap. Yes, I'm referring to "The Matrix" type of knowledge uploads.




Edit- I don't like "men" at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To make it more literal for you, I was not referring to those born with obvious mental disabilities.

Obvious mental disabilities suggest non-obvious ones.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a given.

But how does that change that humans, regardless of race, have the same average potential?

Find the "least intelligent" tribe in Africa or South America. Take one of their babies at birth, raise it with an excellent Western education, and it should come out more intelligent than the average white person in America. Agreed?

Quite likely. I would still argue it depends more on the individual than anything else.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obvious mental disabilities suggest non-obvious ones.

Say whaaa?


Oh. OIC.


I'm not referring to retards: I'm referring to those who are average.


Does that work for you?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Quite likely. I would still argue it depends more on the individual than anything else.

This is true...sort of.

Back in the day, the rich children didn't have a choice. They were forced to learn, "or else". Some rebeled and wallowed in ignorance, but it was quite forecful in the "edcuation" received.

Stupid laws in place don't allow us to flog our stupid children.

Originally posted by The Scribe
Whoa: a cry to call attention from a distance, 1623



That makes no sense.

How this ruling changes the law and precedent:
Before-There's a test or some employment standard wherein over 90% of an ethnic or racial or gender group fail despite coming from diverse backgrounds. A court can strike down the test as illegal and prejudicial.

Now-The court can only strike down the test or standard based on the following burden of proof. That someone could file a civil lawsuit AND that the person would win. In other words, no one cares about discrimination or principles, they just don't want to pay out damages. hence why the court voted along party lines and was split 5-4, not 9-0 like Beck and Limbaugh are reporting it.

If the test is actually essential to the job to be performed though, it shouldn't matter how many of which race fail it, don't you think?

if the failure rates are that disproportionate, it has nothing to do with the job and there's obviously something rotten going on. and even then, this precedent means the suite has nothing to do with how well they perform the job.

It's like, say you're working at a financial services company where to get promoted beyond a certain point, you have to be able to do 20 pull ups. It has nothing to do with the job, and it's quite possible that a disproportionate amount of people based on economic, ethnic, adn gender lines are not going to get that promotion. The new standard isn't discrimination and job relevance, it's can they sue us, so if those people can't hire lawyers to file a civil suit against the company, than in the eyes of the law, it's not discriminatory.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
if the failure rates are that disproportionate, it has nothing to do with the job and there's obviously something rotten going on. and even then, this precedent means the suite has nothing to do with how well they perform the job.

It's like, say you're working at a financial services company where to get promoted beyond a certain point, you have to be able to do 20 pull ups. It has nothing to do with the job, and it's quite possible that a disproportionate amount of people based on economic, ethnic, adn gender lines are not going to get that promotion. The new standard isn't discrimination and job relevance, it's can they sue us, so if those people can't hire lawyers to file a civil suit against the company, than in the eyes of the law, it's not discriminatory.

I was really just referring to cases where the test actually relates to the job. If you have some job where only 5 blacks apply and maybe 20 whites, it is statistically quite possible that the 5 actually weren't suited for the job, and if they then got a job, on the sole base of their race, I would say that, if you accept the vaidity of anti-discrimatory laws in the first base, you'll have to admit they were wronged and give them the option to sue, just as a member of another race could in the opposite case.


For your point about it just being an issue of money, I don't follow exactly the reasoning behind it, i.e. I don't know how your conclusion is reached from the case that was presented in the initial post, which might be because I am missing some information or just don't actually know anything about law, but that's why I didn't comment on that particular issue.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was under the assumption that all humans had the same intellectual potential, regardless of what actually happens in their nuturing.


Is this incorrect?


In other words, switch Scott Duncan Smith with Michael Tyrone Williams at birth, and William will end up "stupid" and Michael will end up just as intelligent and knowledgeable as Scott would have. Is that incorrect? Is there really different intellectual potentials across the races? I mean, sure there is actual differences, but are the potentials different?

Biggest problem with what you are asking is that there are many measures of intelligence or "smartness", especially in a case like this, where actual ability and IQ score may be totally unrelated.

anyways:

1. People do not have the same potential. Whatever measure it is that is used to measure intelligence, it is highly hereditary and stable. Much like some people are born with genes that allow their body to become muscular with little effort, some people have that with linear thinking or problem solving. Training may compensate to a certain degree, but all the training in the world wouldn't make me as talented a hockey player as Jerome Iginla.

2. However, this isn't to say that birth conditions are sufficient to produce intelligence. One might have the necessary genes to become super smart, though they may not nurture them, and they would never develop. So, switch any two people, and even if they had identical genetic make-ups, they would develop different intellectual capacities based entirely on their environmental interactions.

3. The way race interacts with this is, potentially, two-fold:

A. Because there are socio-economic differences between races, and these differences lead to more or less of a poverty of stimuli for a developing mind, races on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum will have a less engaging environment for their children to be raised in, offering them less ability to develop the neurological architecture necessary for advanced intellect.

B. Also, there are potential innate differences in races with regard to their scores on the standard IQ test. The most recent study I have seen, which controlled for things like SES, education, etc, maintains something like 4 points of difference between white and black students. This is by no means definitive, and there are still many variables that were not controlled for in the study, however, it does provide some evidence that differences in IQ scores may be racial. What 4 IQ points translates to in reality, I have no idea, and based on the interactions I have with people on a daily basis, if it is true, the 4 points are negligible at best.

4. Following that last point, there are some weird psychological phenomena that come into play when measuring this stuff. If black people take a test knowing their score is being used for a racial comparison, they perform worse than they would if they didn't think that. Several things work this way, and the dominant explanation is that black people feel more racial pressure to perform, or are more anxious when they know they will be compared to members of other races.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Agreed. I'm off the opinion that nurture plays a much larger role in "intelligence" and educational motivation, on the whole, than does genetics.

If we are speaking of IQ, that is highly debatable.

Nature vs Nurture is almost entirely irrelevant in modern psychology, and it is the interaction between the two that is seen as the most important for any trait, however, the hereditary nature of IQ scores is very strong. It is also very likely that one's attentional resources are "genetic", meaning that their ability to direct themselves to be motivated to learn may be something they are born with (though, like I said above, these nature/nurture distinctions are moot with regard to modern psych).

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I hate white people.

What the **** are you talking about? The white people are not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, white people is not the preferred nomenclature. "English-American", please.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I hate white people.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9939/thatsracist2.gif


Originally posted by Mindset
I like the cut of your jib.

You like the cut of everyone's "jib."

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
What the **** are you talking about? The white people are not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, white people is not the preferred nomenclature. "English-American", please. Well, I hate white people.

Originally posted by inimalist
Biggest problem with what you are asking is that there are many measures of intelligence or "smartness", especially in a case like this, where actual ability and IQ score may be totally unrelated.

anyways:

1. People do not have the same potential. Whatever measure it is that is used to measure intelligence, it is highly hereditary and stable. Much like some people are born with genes that allow their body to become muscular with little effort, some people have that with linear thinking or problem solving. Training may compensate to a certain degree, but all the training in the world wouldn't make me as talented a hockey player as Jerome Iginla.

I was not referring to specific individuals, but humans as a whole. Meaning, we are all the same species and regardless of race. Sure, there is data that indicates the IQ is less among those of African decent...but isn't that more of a problem of education than actual potential? IQ isn't the only measure of intelligence, as you know.


My example is not referring to individuals, but to metaphors for the entire people.


I am not talking about two imaginary boys, William and Scott. I'm referring to them as examples.


If that scenario were done an infinite number of times (assuming we had an infinite number of "western" children to use and "African" children to use), the poles should cancel each other out, and we are left with the middle, which is really what I'm referring to in my example. They should do just as well. This is my point of "human potential" and it being just a case of nurture.

Originally posted by inimalist
2. However, this isn't to say that birth conditions are sufficient to produce intelligence. One might have the necessary genes to become super smart, though they may not nurture them, and they would never develop. So, switch any two people, and even if they had identical genetic make-ups, they would develop different intellectual capacities based entirely on their environmental interactions.

I am aware of this, but, again, I'm not referring to individual cases or a specific outcome. I'm referring to an average.


Here, let me put it a different way: Are black people dumber, no matter what?

Originally posted by inimalist
3. The way race interacts with this is, potentially, two-fold:

A. Because there are socio-economic differences between races, and these differences lead to more or less of a poverty of stimuli for a developing mind, races on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum will have a less engaging environment for their children to be raised in, offering them less ability to develop the neurological architecture necessary for advanced intellect.

The only problem I have with this: The vast majority know, maybe not as tangibly as other socio-economic demographics, but they all know how important an education is. Every walk of life talks about it being important...but I understand that not all truly grasp how important it really is.



Originally posted by inimalist
B. Also, there are potential innate differences in races with regard to their scores on the standard IQ test. The most recent study I have seen, which controlled for things like SES, education, etc, maintains something like 4 points of difference between white and black students. This is by no means definitive, and there are still many variables that were not controlled for in the study, however, it does provide some evidence that differences in IQ scores may be racial. What 4 IQ points translates to in reality, I have no idea, and based on the interactions I have with people on a daily basis, if it is true, the 4 points are negligible at best.

That's a function of culture/sub-culture, rather than less human potential, right?

Originally posted by inimalist
4. Following that last point, there are some weird psychological phenomena that come into play when measuring this stuff. If black people take a test knowing their score is being used for a racial comparison, they perform worse than they would if they didn't think that. Several things work this way, and the dominant explanation is that black people feel more racial pressure to perform, or are more anxious when they know they will be compared to members of other races.

Yeah, I've read about this. Very interesting.

I believe the socio-economic factors which a person grows up in effect their intelligence far more than their race. Though I am sure genetics must play a part somewhere I doubt that there is a notable genetic difference between blacks and whites when it comes to this issue.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I believe the socio-economic factors which a person grows up in effect their intelligence far more than their race. Though I am sure genetics must play a part somewhere I doubt that there is a notable genetic difference between blacks and whites when it comes to this issue.

I tend to agree with this, a well. I don't like someone telling me that I can't make it because I was born a poor black child.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a function of culture/sub-culture, rather than less human potential, right?

It sounds like they tried to control of that as much as possible.

More to the point, you'd have to know the specific test they used in order to draw any conclusions from the data.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here, let me put it a different way: Are black people dumber, no matter what?

even if there were a racial difference, this wouldn't be the case. There could be black kids smarter than the smartest white kids, but so long as on aggregate the IQ score was lower than the whites, there would be said to be a racial difference.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The only problem I have with this: The vast majority know, maybe not as tangibly as other socio-economic demographics, but they all know how important an education is. Every walk of life talks about it being important...but I understand that not all truly grasp how important it really is.

its not that poor people don't want their kids to be educated, it is that their environments are less developed institutionally to provide an enriched environment for their children. They can afford less toys for their children to engage with, and often have to work longer hours and have less time to dedicate to raising a child.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a function of culture/sub-culture, rather than less human potential, right?

that is the million dollar question.

the studies I have seen controlled for such factors, so no, if one is persuaded by their evidence, there is some sort of innate racial difference.

My personal thoughts: There is no reason, a priori, to assume that there wouldn't be cognitive differences between races. There are physiological differences in alcohol tolerance, various adaptations to climates, skin colour, and even structural changes to the body that allow people that descend from various parts of Africa to excel at different types of running.

The evidence, as it exists, is compelling enough. They have done everything possible to control for cultural or economic factors, for racial biases and other such things, and sometimes they find the ~4 IQ point difference between racial groups. It is somewhat inconsistent, and, understandably, there are few labs doing studies into it.

mostly though, I would challenge the very basis of what is being proposed. While IQ does correlate strongly to some measures of success in society, that certainly doesn't mean that it represents what the common man would consider intelligence. And even at that, how noticeable is a 4 IQ difference?

The differences we see on a daily basis are assuredly based on American culture, where there are huge inequities in access to education between the rich and the poor, and worse even in minority communities. Aside from the institutions themselves, poverty creates a culture where parents, while acting more communally, have less time to devote to their children, especially when compared to the wealthy who often have jobs that allow them maternity leave.

I tend to agree with you, that racial differences in IQ scores reflect something, be it SES or racial biases in test taking, but there is certainly a strong body of evidence which points in the other direction.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I believe the socio-economic factors which a person grows up in effect their intelligence far more than their race. Though I am sure genetics must play a part somewhere I doubt that there is a notable genetic difference between blacks and whites when it comes to this issue.

there is some evidence that there is an innate difference.

also, genes are expected to play a large role in intelligence, or IQ rather, as scores are highly hereditary and stable over time. Though you are correct, the interaction with the environment is what is crucial, as it is what allows various genes to create more robust connections in the brain, facilitating greater information processing, etc.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I tend to agree with this, a well. I don't like someone telling me that I can't make it because I was born a poor black child.

genetics aside, i think it is rather tragic if you can't sympathize with the conditions of a poor black child in America. To think they have all of the advantages and opportunities as someone born in a family with more affluence is somewhat ridiculous, and to build a society upon the competition between these two types of individuals only leads to a cycle that I'm sure you are well aware of.

lol, or no, what am I saying, every hood thug made a conscious, informed decision to get into the life they did, forgoing their ample opportunity for work, education, or mentoring, ignoring the plethora of positive black role models, who coincidentally aren't making millions of dollars for white CEOs, and tip-toeing around the violence, racism and depression that come with life.

Like, for instance, there are studies where they will tape students, WHO KNOW EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE BEING TAPED, giving mock interviews to black and white participants, as if they were going to hire them. Even black students treated the black interviewee worse. There is a weapons bias, where people are more likely to associate weapons with the faces of black people than white people. Studies have found this replicates with black people.

To say the least, the difficulties surrounding black people in America have nothing to do with their genes.

/rant

lol, sorry, sort of got on a role

Originally posted by inimalist
even if there were a racial difference, this wouldn't be the case. There could be black kids smarter than the smartest white kids, but so long as on aggregate the IQ score was lower than the whites, there would be said to be a racial difference.


Let me rephrase: If all things, except genetics, were equal, would black people still be dumber than the other races?



I think we're talking in circles, and it's really my fault.



What I mean:

No, there's no differences in cognitive ability. It's all nurture that makes the difference.



Originally posted by inimalist
its not that poor people don't want their kids to be educated, it is that their environments are less developed institutionally to provide an enriched environment for their children. They can afford less toys for their children to engage with, and often have to work longer hours and have less time to dedicate to raising a child.

I had hotwheels...and maybe a few action figures. I didn't have many toys.


I played outside...and explored the world and made many mental notes...lot's of children do that. Bugs are fascinating.



Originally posted by inimalist
that is the million dollar question.

the studies I have seen controlled for such factors, so no, if one is persuaded by their evidence, there is some sort of innate racial difference.

My personal thoughts: There is no reason, a priori, to assume that there wouldn't be cognitive differences between races. There are physiological differences in alcohol tolerance, various adaptations to climates, skin colour, and even structural changes to the body that allow people that descend from various parts of Africa to excel at different types of running.

The evidence, as it exists, is compelling enough. They have done everything possible to control for cultural or economic factors, for racial biases and other such things, and sometimes they find the ~4 IQ point difference between racial groups. It is somewhat inconsistent, and, understandably, there are few labs doing studies into it.

mostly though, I would challenge the very basis of what is being proposed. While IQ does correlate strongly to some measures of success in society, that certainly doesn't mean that it represents what the common man would consider intelligence. And even at that, how noticeable is a 4 IQ difference?

The differences we see on a daily basis are assuredly based on American culture, where there are huge inequities in access to education between the rich and the poor, and worse even in minority communities. Aside from the institutions themselves, poverty creates a culture where parents, while acting more communally, have less time to devote to their children, especially when compared to the wealthy who often have jobs that allow them maternity leave.

I tend to agree with you, that racial differences in IQ scores reflect something, be it SES or racial biases in test taking, but there is certainly a strong body of evidence which points in the other direction.


That's all very interesting. So there really is a difference in race even when controlled for socio-economic condition....very interesting.



Originally posted by inimalist
genetics aside, i think it is rather tragic if you can't sympathize with the conditions of a poor black child in America. To think they have all of the advantages and opportunities as someone born in a family with more affluence is somewhat ridiculous, and to build a society upon the competition between these two types of individuals only leads to a cycle that I'm sure you are well aware of.

lol, or no, what am I saying, every hood thug made a conscious, informed decision to get into the life they did, forgoing their ample opportunity for work, education, or mentoring, ignoring the plethora of positive black role models, who coincidentally aren't making millions of dollars for white CEOs, and tip-toeing around the violence, racism and depression that come with life.

Like, for instance, there are studies where they will tape students, WHO KNOW EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE BEING TAPED, giving mock interviews to black and white participants, as if they were going to hire them. Even black students treated the black interviewee worse. There is a weapons bias, where people are more likely to associate weapons with the faces of black people than white people. Studies have found this replicates with black people.

To say the least, the difficulties surrounding black people in America have nothing to do with their genes.

/rant

lol, sorry, sort of got on a role


Of course I can sympathize...especially considering I had my roots in almost the lowest of conditions. But I what I don't sympathize with are those who try to use that as an excuse. (being born poor in a bad neighborhood.) I still think the system should be "work to get there" not "alter the system to your level".




I really want some major education reform, which is probably why I think this way.

Originally posted by Mindset
Well, I hate white people. Really? Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was really just referring to cases where the test actually relates to the job. If you have some job where only 5 blacks apply and maybe 20 whites, it is statistically quite possible that the 5 actually weren't suited for the job, and if they then got a job, on the sole base of their race, I would say that, if you accept the vaidity of anti-discrimatory laws in the first base, you'll have to admit they were wronged and give them the option to sue, just as a member of another race could in the opposite case.


For your point about it just being an issue of money, I don't follow exactly the reasoning behind it, i.e. I don't know how your conclusion is reached from the case that was presented in the initial post, which might be because I am missing some information or just don't actually know anything about law, but that's why I didn't comment on that particular issue.

The burden of proof that has to be met based on the majority opinion in this case is "can we be sued? and if so, can we lose?", not "does this test relate to the job or unfairly target a certain group?".

im surprised that the supreme court didnt get sued for being white.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Really? Why? White people walk like this, I walk like that.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Really? Why?

Because they opress minorities and took them as slaves over a century ago.

Originally posted by KidRock
Because they opress minorities and took them as slaves over a century ago.

That were sold by their own people to be slaves.

Originally posted by The Scribe
That were sold by their own people to be slaves.

pfft, that doesn't matter.

"Whitey" must be blamed for all of the problems of minorities.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The burden of proof that has to be met based on the majority opinion in this case is "can we be sued? and if so, can we lose?", not "does this test relate to the job or unfairly target a certain group?". How do you figure that?

Originally posted by grimify
pfft, that doesn't matter.

"Whitey" must be blamed for all of the problems of minorities.

But, "whitey" shouldn't be.

Originally posted by Mindset
Well, I hate white people. Except for Dr Doom.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you figure that? http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

I honestly think there probably wasn't any discrimination in this particular case, I just object to the wording in the court opinion and what it can be used for.

Originally posted by Mindset
White people walk like this, I walk like that. Good. I hope you hate white people. And guess what...white people hate you. Go back to China!! Originally posted by KidRock
Because they opress minorities and took them as slaves over a century ago.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I read Kennedy's majority opinion and Ginsberg's dissent and that's what I got out of it based on their arguments and criticism. It's all here at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

I honestly think there probably wasn't any discrimination in this particular case, I just object to the wording in the court opinion and what it can be used for.

Ah, yes, I see what you mean now. The city could only have discarded the tests if it had been very likely that they would have lost a civil suit for discrimination. Now, i don't think that is necessarily bad, it is perhaps a warped view to laymen like me, but I think in theory, winning such a lawsuit would be, from a legal standpoint, equivalent to being discriminated against, so I don't think I fully agree with your assessment of that problem. If the city could have proven that the black firefighters could have won the suit, then the test would have been discriminatory against blacks and therefore the white and hispanic ones wouldn't have had a basis to sue over. It does make some sense to me. But if I understood correctly (and I might not have, since I didn't read every page) the court was under the assumption that either it is discriminatory against blacks or not, and if it isn't it is discriminatory to discard the results in favour of blacks, even though they have not been discriminated, no?

Yes, but again, this case isn't as important as what can be done with this as precedent.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes, but again, this case isn't as important as what can be done with this as precedent. I don't understand? I assume companies already judged on whether they would lose a discrimination case if they did something.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes, but again, this case isn't as important as what can be done with this as precedent.

Bingo.

I'm not sure if I mentioned it already, but some are saying this will set a precedent that will start causing a wave of anti-reverse-racism. Other's say that this is a fad and will fade away in a decade and cases like this will only be "found" in history books.





I'm hoping that it's the latter BECAUSE of the former. Maybe enough of these cases will come about to balance out the "ZOMG! That HAS to be racist" hysteria.




I am the usually the first to steer a conversation away from something racist, but I am also the first to call people on "reverse racism" or ideas that foster racism or hate against "whites."



I don't like racism in any from. I certainly have seen a shit ton of racism against black people by every race out there, including their own, but I've seen far more racism from black people against white people. (You'd think it'd be the opposite since I'm white.)





Racism sucks, it's stupid, and I hate it. There is data out there that can support healthy prejudice and, in fact, it could be considered morally wrong to not act on those prejudices. However, there is a ambiguous line that should not be crossed, racism is not excluded from that line.



If that point is lost on some of you, I'll explain:

You don't leave your child alone with a known child molester. That's just stupid and wrong. Even if in doubt, don't risk it, dumbass.