Kobe AnyHoleWillDo Bryant
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: Gapz - this one is *REALLY* good... |
 |
|
[quote]From: Cast Iron lajklajlkajajalk
Date: 10/3/03 9:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Let>s say for example, that you had concrete, irrefutable evidence that
one group of people (which group, it doesn>t matter now) was less capable
intellectually, and more prone to violence, than another group.
Would you publicize that? Would you be willing to destroy your career
for the truth? Or would you suppress such findings because of political
correctness?
Of course, this is a hypothetical, but we all know people like to
suppress data they find damaging or contrary to their political views.
[/quote]
Replace "concrete, irrefutable evidence" with "remarkably strong evidence" and
this sort of thing [supression of findings] happens all the time...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I measure success by the degree to which I ruin other people>s lives." |
|
bnichols
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:12 am Post subject: Re: Gapz - this one is *REALLY* good... |
|
|
Cast Iron <lajklajlkajajalk> wrote in message news:<349d330aefd62930da5c93bca3638110@news.teranews.com>...
[quote]top2@cox.net (bnichols) wrote in
news:12974278.0310030705.14807f4a@posting.google.com:
"Eustace Bagg" <Bagg@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<ZHafb.2995$Zm2.165268@kent.svc.tds.net>...
"David Richardson" <drichardson_all4one@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:88698706.0310021932.10298492@posting.google.com...
"diff>rent strokes" <lkjklakjakj> wrote in message
news:<e14585dfdb1499dfd20093d74a12acba@news.teranews.com>...
makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote in
news:3F7C0AFF.A952CC89
@worldnet.att.net:
To enter the military, an equivalent minimum IQ of 85
is required.
This means half of all DAFNz are excluded - the
DUMBEST half.
This requirement excludes only about 15% of whites.
Let>s see how the *children* of the SMARTEST half of
all DAFNz
perform in Dept of Defense schools for military
dependents:
http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2002/fb042602.htm
************************** excerpt
**********************************
School Success and Minority Student Achievement in
Department of
Defense Schools -- A Forum Brief ? April 26, 2002
[...] The NAEP results showed that African
American...students
enrolled in Department of Defense (DoD) schools in the
United States
and abroad ranked No. 1 and No. 2 among African
Americans...in the
nation on reading and writing tests.
[...] DoD operates 224 elementary and secondary
schools
(155 are overseas and 69 are in the United States)
that enroll
about 112,000 students. Of the students, 50% are
white, 20% are
African American, 9% Hispanic, 15% Bi/Multi Racial,
and 6% Asian.
[...] The researchers...reported that the gap between
the performance
of white students and that of African-American...was
narrower than
this gap in the 50 states.
************************************************************
***********
The report tries to suggest that the gap reduction is
due to various
quallities of the DoD schools, as if DoD knows
something the rest of
the nation>s educators don>t. But in fact, the
resultz are *exactly*
what you would expect when you compare the *children*
of all DAFNz,
with the *children* of the *Smartest_Half* of all
DAFNz.
Since intellectual performance is highly genetic in
origin, the
children of the smartest parents in a group are going
to do better
than the children of all parents in that group. Not
rocket science,
just exactly what would be expected from the genetics.
And, of course, the DAFN/white *gap* is still there,
just smaller.
Again, exactly what you would expect from what is
known and
predicted from existing data, i.e., the IQ of the
smartest half
of all DAFNz is approximately equal to the IQ of the
dumbest half
of all whites (see the DAFN-white IQ bell curves shown
on pg 279, TBC)
that average value is approximately IQ=90 for those
sub-groups.
DAFNz...what Mother_Nature hath genetically created
unequal.
The DoD school resultz simply provide powerful
additional *proof*...
Not to mention that all these students come from
families of similar
"culture" (military culture) and of similar economic
means.
That completely throws the "money makes you smart"
argument out the
window.
Who>s yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA
Actually,
You fail to see the difference in the societal structure
of the
military. I was raised in a military family and I had a
family in the
military society.
First, a larger percentage of the families are two-parent
then in the
outside. Next, the behaviour of your family can have a
direct impact
on your career; infractions will be reported to your
commander who
will expect you to get your family in line.
The school systems are better because they don>t have to
worry about
the violence that you see in urban schools; I would
imagine that if
you looked at the scores based upon rank, you would even
see an even
smaller gap.
Your blind contention that genetics is a large determining
factor, is
simply based upon your desperate need for these facts to
exactly fit
how you see the world.
Granted, I agree with you that the Black community is
doing extremely
poorly in many of the educational metrics - I just don>t
see genetics
as an overriding factor in the equation...
dratster
It is amazing that you can type so well being blind like you
are.
E.B.
Considering that considerable medical research has been done
regarding this subject, & the vast majority of it indicates
that genetics, while *a* factor, is not *the* main factor in
intelligence, if there *are* glaucoma or cataracts involved
here they>re most likely not on his part. :) BTW, to answer
the next question, no, I>m not a doctor -- I>m a researcher
specializing in medical informatics & analysis; I>ve been
doing it for a living for a little over 25 years now, so I>d
say the odds are pretty fair that I know a little more about
the body of published medical literature than most people. <grin
Perhaps. But you could also be one of those fools who let>s his biases
[/quote]
Possible, yes, but not actual. BTW, your spell-checker messed
up on its evaluation of "let>s" above, I believe. ;)
[quote]get in the way of his objectivity. Unfortunately, there are too many
people like that in this politically correct day in age.
[/quote]
Quite so -- however in my profession the prime mantra is "Assume
nothing," so I>m safe from that particular scourge. :)
[quote]
Let>s say for example, that you had concrete, irrefutable evidence that
one group of people (which group, it doesn>t matter now) was less capable
intellectually, and more prone to violence, than another group.
Would you publicize that? Would you be willing to destroy your career
for the truth? Or would you suppress such findings because of political
correctness?
[/quote]
Yes on 1, no on 2 & 3. I would, of course, also make sure my
findings were independently verifiable & repeatable (the main
tenet of truly scientific research) under enough conditions to
be considered accurate & not an aberration.
[quote]
Of course, this is a hypothetical, but we all know people like to
suppress data they find damaging or contrary to their political views.
[/quote]
Yup -- the tobacco industry, the Bush administration, et al.
[quote]
Afterall, all emotions and thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain,
right? And we all know levels and balances of these chemicals are
influenced (determined?) by genetics, right?
[/quote]
Not necessarily or under all circumstances, no. ;) Traumatic
brain injury as well as a number of other factors can also play
into the equation.
[quote]
Who>s yer daddy, boy?!
[/quote]
Heck, *I>m* de daddy. }:)
B |
|
