Let's Talk About Race

[hammegk]

To me this seems to be suggesting that there are dna markers that correspond with ethnic affiliation. *shrugs* is it a sign of significant genetic difference which manifests educational, social and/or economic success?
Ethnic Variation as a Key to the Biology of Human Disease

LOL. Other tests which link IQ to an individual, and then by these markers to "race" have no merit, yet disease Biology is a fit topic to scientifically describe as having racial components. Although your quote seems to disagree with any marker other than sickle-cell having any merit -- they were careful to discuss "differences" and throw out the canard "vary rare". Must to be tough to find the "right" answer I guess.

Do you dispute that IQ links to many types of "success"?

 

[Dancing David]

Do you dispute that IQ links to many types of "success"?

I would, the only thing that IQ relates to consistantly is itself, that is why it is not a factor in college admissions(or so i have heard).

In fact colleges may use test because they are there, there is little correlation between entance exams and college succsess, or so I have heard from people in the admissions game.

Maybe a better question: what should be added to IQ to make it meaningful.

Peace

 

[hammegk]

In fact colleges may use test because they are there, there is little correlation between entance exams and college succsess, or so I have heard from people in the admissions game.

Anecdotes don't carry much weight. Has this "lack of correlation" been demonstrated in any published studies? Quite a number have demonstrated that the correlation is strong.

SAT's are highly g loaded IIRC.

 

[Dancing David]

hammegk: you are quite right my sources are antecdotal, is that correlation higher than 60%. I will read and see.
Peace

 

[hammegk]

The 60% confuses me a bit since I'm not sure what you are applying it to. I hope you will do some reading.

60% might be a reasonable correlation between 1200 SATs & people who finish college. Or are you referring to IQ & race? Many articles out there 50-80% IIRC are current estimates.

Re anecdotal: I've seen this, but am myself curious as to its veracity??? Er, christianparty, for god's sake....

http://christianparty.net/sathu2.htm

 

[BillyTK]

LOL. Other tests which link IQ to an individual, and then by these markers to "race" have no merit, yet disease Biology is a fit topic to scientifically describe as having racial components.

Why do you think that is? The pc'lib conspiracy, or the validity of the supporting evidence?

Although your quote seems to disagree with any marker other than sickle-cell having any merit --

From the article:

Of the thousands of markers that have been surveyed in multiple human populations, only one (the Duffy null allele, which confers resistance to Plasmodium vivax malaria) is found in 100% of African persons and 0% of other persons.

Seems to? The basis for this judgement *seems* pretty sound, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

they were careful to discuss "differences" and throw out the canard "vary rare". Must to be tough to find the "right" answer I guess.

Yeah, particularly when there's so many "wrong" answers kicking around, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Do you dispute that IQ links to many types of "success"?

Originally posted by BillyTK
Round my neck of the woods there's a joke that IQ testing is a test of how middle class you are, because that's another amorphous correlate of economic success.

Remember?

 

[hammegk]

Why do you think that is? The pc'lib conspiracy, or the validity of the supporting evidence?

I don't consider pc'lib a conspiracy, thanks.

Seems to? The basis for this judgement *seems* pretty sound, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Get serious. The herrings are starting to stink.

Remember?

See my last comment.



And where oh where is Dancing David???

 

[BillyTK]

I don't consider pc'lib a conspiracy, thanks.

I'm glad we've cleared that one up.

Get serious. The herrings are starting to stink.

Which herring would that be, the one about "the thousands of markers that have been surveyed in multiple human populations" or the one about your admitted inability to find evidence to support your views?

See my last comment.

You asked the question, and c'mon, we've been round the gardens with this one already.

And where oh where is Dancing David???

Dancing, I'd guess...

 

[hammegk]

BillyTK, you must be correct. I salute you for selecting your associates & workforce on the basis of their dumbness.

How is business going?

 

[Dancing David]

I am still digesting, there have been some way cool points raised, and Diogenes turned me onto this thing about atoms, and I was getting stupid with Interesting Ian.

The reason I asked about the 60% is that there is an inherent glitch in correlation where results below that level are insignificant.(I keep throwing that around, I'd better go check).

I have had to confront the idea of how to battle rasissm without using racism, ther farthest I have gotten is that I think bigotry exists and we need to make sure it is not institutional.

I think that Hamme has raised a very valid point, in modern medicine there is a slowly developing field to study which medicines are effective with variuos sub-groups of the population. For example, flouride wrecks havoc with latino teeth.

This poses the further question of which lifestyle and other factors fir into those studies.

On the Headstart thing, I still support it, I thought it was more than a year, but will have to call some people I know. Hammegk raised the point that he feels that money should be spent on the kids who it will benefit the most. My only counter argument is that I am still not convinced that IQ alone is a valid predictor of sucsess. I think that there are still too many socio economic factors that lead to sucsess in education that I can't agree to the argument.

I am paying attention, just wasting my time in other threads.

Funk On.

 

[BillyTK]

BillyTK, you must be correct. I salute you for selecting your associates & workforce on the basis of their dumbness.

How is business going?

Are ad homs the only thing you've got to support your case, hammekg?

 

[hammegk]

Are ad homs the only thing you've got to support your case, hammegk?

You mean as opposed to pc'lib babble? I suspect we agree on various things:

g exists, is measureable, and predicts in a correlative, group, sense how real-world life is handled -- well or badly.

Some predictive use of g does apply to the individual.

Fast muscle/slow muscle reaction time tests do correlate to g.


No study has ever given strong to support to the statement that IQ (g) is highly malleable by environment. Many studies point more & more strongly to the opposite conclusion: what you're born with is what you end up with as "adult IQ".


Unfortunately, using obvious & superficial racial characteristics, other correlations appear. Over the past 50 years every effort has been expended to "prove" that this is racism, not reality, but to no avail.

DNA analysis does show strong correlations -- presumably to negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid, and australo -- groups.


If you have any refutation, please point it out for me. Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

New tact:

Maybe spending money to educate and train individuals that don't have high IQs will help keep them from becomeing the antisocials and burdens of the future.

Does g corellate to job performance as measured by employers and again correlations below the sixty percent mark are eak and it's been stuffed through a chi table I think that the threshold raises to 80%.

How do they control for the various factors that do also effect say school performance in these studies?

Peace

 

[hammegk]

New tact:

Maybe spending money to educate and train individuals that don't have high IQs will help keep them from becomeing the antisocials and burdens of the future.

No disagreement there. The trouble is IQ is a predictor, and if it is used it is not race-neutral.

As a talking point, schools should be three tier systems: IQ under 85, 85 to 115, over 115. Under 85 should be able to read & write after 12 years. Mid-group receives "the usual", Higher group more math & science, plus other subjects of individual interest. Funding the same for both lower & higher groups, bulk to mid-group. Whatta ya think?

If student (actually parents usually) want student in higher group, no problem; pass the tests is all that's required-- parents or tutors provide help if & as needed.

Does g corellate to job performance as measured by employers and again correlations below the sixty percent mark are weak and it's been stuffed through a chi table I think that the threshold raises to 80%.

How do they control for the various factors that do also effect say school performance in these studies?

Google finds various stuff -- none of which I particularly trust. Have you visited the local library lately? You will have a better chance to find answers in the detail you need.

On correlation cooeficients you will have to form your own conclusions as to meaningfulness & utiltity.

 

[BillyTK]

You mean as opposed to pc'lib babble?

Would that be "all the evidence which disagrees with you"?

I suspect we agree on various things:

Sorry hammekg, but we agree on none of the below; we've been through each one directly or indirectly and I've supplied evidence to support my case, particular wrt the issue of race and genetics.

For that reason I'm going to drop out the debate unless there's anything new you want to bring to the table (or if I find something that might be of interest).

Cheers

Billy

g exists, is measureable, and predicts in a correlative, group, sense how real-world life is handled -- well or badly.

Some predictive use of g does apply to the individual.

Fast muscle/slow muscle reaction time tests do correlate to g.

No study has ever given strong to support to the statement that IQ (g) is highly malleable by environment. Many studies point more & more strongly to the opposite conclusion: what you're born with is what you end up with as "adult IQ".

Unfortunately, using obvious & superficial racial characteristics, other correlations appear. Over the past 50 years every effort has been expended to "prove" that this is racism, not reality, but to no avail.

DNA analysis does show strong correlations -- presumably to negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid, and australo -- groups.

If you have any refutation, please point it out for me. Thanks.

 

[hammegk]

Sorry hammekg, but we agree on none of the below; we've been through each one directly or indirectly and I've supplied evidence to support my case, particular wrt the issue of race and genetics.

You did? I guess I missed your "evidence". I'm particularly interested in the study you like that supports any increase in adult level IQ over that predicted by early testing.

And you will "prove" my comments on g are wrong? Where will you publish?

Finally, I don't mind agreeing to disagree. You hire the dumb ones & I'll make do with what's left for my business enterprises ...

On the actual topic -- race -- I'm curious as to the lack of scientists posting here to step up to the plate and state that from their reading of the current human dna efforts "there do not exist dna markers that correlate distinctly and differently to each of the 4 historically recognized racial groups". When is BillHoyt going to illuminate this point for us?

 

[Dancing David]

Hammegk:
I think that some already made the point that tissue typing does map certain genetic 'pools', they just don't always follow skin tone or cultural beliefs.

I am still not sure that IQ means anything other than ability to take IQ tests.

Peace