Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=Well, 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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
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:
[b]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.[/B]
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
[b]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.[/B]
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
[b]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]
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]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.[/B]
That's a function of culture/sub-culture, rather than less human potential, right?
Originally posted by inimalist
[b]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. [/B]
Yeah, I've read about this. Very interesting.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
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 😮
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
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 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?".
[QUOTE=12020462]Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you figure that? [/QUOTE
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.
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.pdfI 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?