[quote=“Alien”] Having grown up entirely in the south where the population of blacks to whites is relatively equal, I’ll say that I have never personally experienced racism, attacks, or muggings. On the contrary to many people’s beliefs, the south is not nearly as racist as other parts of the US. In fact, up there with driving on freeways, I miss the black population the most about living here in homogeneous Taiwan.
[/quote]
My experience has been pretty much the same as Alien’s. I disagree that I never encountered any racism in the small-town South - there’s going to be racism everywhere, it’s a universal human condition. But on the whole much of the South is generally less racist than the other parts of the U.S. We’ve had to deal with it much longer, we’ve had more experience handling it because of the past, so you could say that the south has ‘matured’ from painful experience that other parts of the country are still painfully learning.
As for race & IQ - the Bell Curve - from what I’ve read that while genetics plays a part in IQ level, the much more important factor is environment. If you compare the IQs of poor black kids and poor white kids, you’ll find that they are even; same with comparing IQs of middle-class black and white kids. The discrepancy between black & white IQs comes down to class difference, not race difference - most whites in America are middle-class and have better educational opportunities than black kids. Studies have shown that when black kids are given equal educational opportunities as white kids, the IQ rates among the black kids rise substantially. The problem is that in America school funding is done on a local level and there are huge disparities between quality of education from neighborhood to neighborhood, depending on whether it’s a rich or poor part of town. Many black kids in America get the shaft by getting sent to substandard inner-city schools plagued by gang violence where teachers have to take combat pay - in that kind of environment it’s surprising than any kids could learn anything at all. Segregation is still alive and well in American school districts today.
Sorry my understanding of the Bell Curve is that despite the same environments, Whites were scoring higher and performing better than Blacks regardless of social circumstances. In fact, this is one of the major criticisms of affirmative action is that it helps Blacks from wealthy families who score low get into elite universities, while failing to help the poor Blacks for whom it was intended to provide assistance. There is talk now of phasing out racial preferences for poverty preferences and that I would support.
I am not aware of any studies showing that environment has proved conclusively to be key as you mentioned. Would you care to provide some links.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Socioeconomic factors are controlled for in all recent studies on I.Q. The large differences between races in I.Q. persist.
[quote=“Alleycat”]It seems the difference is an entire level, 15 points being reported by most studies, if one considers the scale below:
Average: 85 - 115
Above average: 116 - 125
Gifted Borderline Genius: 126 - 135
Highly gifted and appearing to be a Genius to most others: 136 - 145
Genius: 146 - 165
High Genius: 166 - 180
Highest Genius: 181 - 200
[/quote]
Extra Highest Genius (Cold Front): 201-225
New and Improved Highest Genius (Cranky Laowai): 226-249
Super Duper Highest Genius (Mod Lang): 250-274
Super Duper Higher Than Highest Genius with New Lemon Scent (Tigerman): 275-299
Beyond Genius (slightly past that thin line dividing it from Madness) (formosa): 300+
(Note for those posters that claim I am not “constructive”: I did not make light of the other end of the scale. I am learning and listening and becoming a better poster.)
An I.Q. score by itself means little, but a set of I.Q. scores might be important if they correlate to other data. In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray make an argument that they do. If they are correct, then information such as American blacks have lower incomes than American whites is meaningful not as proof of racism, but as simply a difference in latent abilities.
I should maybe have continued with that and analogy and brought it down to the individual as I meant to. This goes nicely with your “latent ability” statement, above.
Are you saying that we should make decisions and pigeon-hole people because of statistical evidence? Or more to the point: are you saying black people should be out picking cotton in Georgia or digging for gold in Johannesburg?
I think the argument is that a lack of representation in some fields does not mean there is evidence of racism. How many black scientists can you come up with? How many black cops? I don’t know the exact percentages, but I’m willing to bet that the percentage of blacks who are cops is far higher than the percentage of those who are scientists. Does that mean scientists are more racist than cops, less willing to allow blacks into their profession?
I’ve got to go, but I’ll continue with the debate when I get back tonight.
That’s assuming a link between IQ and income level. If true, you’d be a billionaire. Are you? Or do you fall outside the norm?
Tall men make, on average, more than short men. Do short men have lower IQs than tall men? Women make, on average, less than women. Do women have lower IQs than men? Etc. I would not rank IQ as the biggest influence on a person’s income.
That’s assuming a link between IQ and income level. If true, you’d be a billionaire. Are you? Or do you fall outside the norm?
Tall men make, on average, more than short men. Do short men have lower IQs than tall men? Women make, on average, less than women. Do women have lower IQs than men? Etc. I would not rank IQ as the biggest influence on a person’s income.[/quote]
Tigerman! You troublemaker!
Let me re-write this: Is the fact that short men make, on average, less money than tall men the result of short men having lower IQs? Is the fact that women make, on average, less than men the result of women having lower IQs? There are other, more signifcant factors, including guanxi, career choices and discrimination, that explain income levels.
I’m certain CF will respond for himself… but,… CF did state:
Thus, even if CF is a super duper genius, whether he earns an high income or not will not be relevant to the issue. But if an entire set of CFs averaged higher or lower incomes, there might be some relevance.
[quote=“HakkaSonic”]Tigerman! You troublemaker!
Let me re-write this: Is the fact that short men make, on average, less money than tall men the result of short men having lower IQs?[/quote]
I have no idea.
I think one of the most significant factors in women earning less than men, on average, is the fact that women give birth to babies. I know things (childcare and time-off regimes) are changing… but I think corporate employers are reluctant to put many women on the fast-track to career success because they believe that there is a good (or at least better) chance that a woman will quit or take substantial time-off when she has a child.
I’m not saying that this practice is right or wrong… I’m only saying that I believe this is a big hassle for corporations / employers and that they have been reluctant to invest in women.
I’m certain CF will respond for himself… but,… CF did state:
Thus, even if CF is a super duper genius, whether he earns an high income or not will not be relevant to the issue. But if an entire set of CFs averaged higher or lower incomes, there might be some relevance.[/quote]
I can only hope that CF gets fruitful and multiplies so we can prove this one way or another.
[quote=“tigerman”]I think one of the most significant factors in women earning less than men, on average, is the fact that women give birth to babies. I know things (childcare and time-off regimes) are changing… but I think corporate employers are reluctant to put many women on the fast-track to career success because they believe that there is a good (or at least better) chance that a woman will quit or take substantial time-off when she has a child.
I’m not saying that this practice is right or wrong… I’m only saying that I believe this is a big hassle for corporations / employers and that they have been reluctant to invest in women.
I could be entirely wrong.[/quote]
I think companies’ hesitancy to put women on the fast-track is part of the reason for the wage gap. I think a bigger factor is the types of careers that women and men have historically chosen. The effects of women in the 1960s and 1970s choosing to become secretaries and nurses, and men choosing to become doctors and engineers (choices largely due to gender roles; men expected to be breadwinners, women expected to raise the kids), will be reflected in the wage gap until those women and men retire. But when you look at an age group, such as 25-39, the situation is quite different. The wage gap is much, much smaller, no doubt due to greater numbers of women entering fields traditionally considered domains of men and more women putting career ahead of family. This is not to say that companies haven’t discriminated against women, only that career choices account for a much larger part of the wage gap.
The Bell Curve is shite. Up there with the ‘smoking doesn’t cause cancer’ type of ‘science’.
IQ tests are a stupid measure of ‘intelligence’ anyway. All they measure is how good you are at doing that certain kind of puzzle.
Other reasons women get paid less than men are, the pay rates for women are sometimes les than pay rates for men, men will be hired in preference to men in many cases and overlooked for promotions, and work traditionally done by women is paid less.
I’m only joking. I have no idea how men and women compare in that regard.