science and racism?

[HelPick2]

how strong do you think the evidence for racial differences (more than skin deep ones) are?

I am searching for info disproving anti-black racism. Does anyone know what I should read, or good articles, that deal with anti-black racism?

 

[Benguin]

Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start, he wrote the selfish gene

Not sure about racism specifically, but it's an accessible text on the genetic differences topic.

You might want to try this post on the politics forum as well.

 

[wittgenst3in]

I heard somewhere that the average genetic difference between normal people is more than the difference between races. I.e. that there is really no such concept as race, but only collection of features such as skin colour, hair colour, nose shape, etc.

I can't remember where I heard this from though, so it's just annecdotal and could be one of those tidbits of science that are in fact false.

 

[BillHoyt]

I heard somewhere that the average genetic difference between normal people is more than the difference between races. I.e. that there is really no such concept as race, but only collection of features such as skin colour, hair colour, nose shape, etc.

I can't remember where I heard this from though, so it's just annecdotal and could be one of those tidbits of science that are in fact false.

Lewontin was one of the first, I think, to point that out.

 

[Bikewer]

Check out Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. A wealth of information on the history of such things.

 

[Dymanic]

The Blank Slate, by Stephen Pinker.

 

[pupdog]

A.S. Romer's "Man and the Vertebrates" (3rd ed., 1941) has a chapter on human races, with lots of photos. Perhaps typical of his era, Romer says things like "...they [Mediterraneans] represent at third progressive step in the advance of Homo sapiens..." and "It is probable that the blood of Cro-Magnon man still flows in the veins of ...The Irishman..."

Nevertheless, Romer based his discussion on (mainly) skull proportions and hair characteristics and remarked that earlier skin-color-based classifications were too simplistic. He also noted that a racial "type" is an artificial ideal, matched by few actual individuals.

 

[bpesta22]

If you insist on citing crappy mismeasure, then please also include the good science in the area that completely contradicts Gould's most embarassing work. See, e.g.,


Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2000). Racial and gender bias in ability and achievement tests: Resolving the apparent paradox. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 151-158.

Jensen, A. (2000). Testing: The dilemma of group differences. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 121-127.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, W., Brody, N., Ceci, S., Halpern, D., Loehlin, J., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.

Reynolds, C. (2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 144-150.

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.


Anything recent by Jensen-- the G factor-- would also be a good source of what real scientists in this area have concluded re race differences in iq.

 

[Dancing David]

Except for the fact that they don't really control for the differences in population.

Sorry Bpresta , I still respectfully disagree. They have not matched the demographics enough to prove that IQ is really different.

Is there some new evidence that IQ really has a high coorelation to anything. Like a 60% coorelation?

Anticipation and respect.

(PS How would you do on the !Kung IQ test?)

 

[bpesta22]

Except for the fact that they don't really control for the differences in population.

Sorry Bpresta , I still respectfully disagree. They have not matched the demographics enough to prove that IQ is really different.

Is there some new evidence that IQ really has a high coorelation to anything. Like a 60% coorelation?

Anticipation and respect.

(PS How would you do on the !Kung IQ test?)

Hey DD.

The differences have been replicated since WW I, and the effect size is about 1.0 for black white differences.

Effect size is what you're asking about, since you seem to want large correlations before assuming they're meaningful.

There's a famous statistician named Cohen who has guidelines for how to interpret effect sizes. Note, he does no research on IQ, these are guidelines for effects in any area:

.2 = small
.4 = medium
.6 = large.

He doesn't even have a label for 1.0, which must therefore be HUGE!

At any rate, it's true that within group variability is larger than between race differences. However, an effect size of 1.0 has serious and profound implications for blacks and whites with regard to various outcomes at the group level.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more replicated effect in all of experimental psychology then the fact that blacks and whites score differently on unbiased tests of intelligence.

B

 

[Dancing David]

I understand the test but I would claim a cultural bias to the testing. (How did you do on the !Kung IQ test?)

My question is this:

How can you control for the single confounding factor of a single enviromental toxin, lead?
As the forties and fifties progressed in America there is a shift in population, white populations to the suburbs and AA populations to the inner city. It has been shown repeatedly that inner city enviroments are very high in lead dust and other forms of enviromental lead.

So who do you control for the fact that it might be exposure to lead which creates or contributes to the difference?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...You'd be hard pressed to find a more replicated effect in all of experimental psychology then the fact that blacks and whites score differently on unbiased tests of intelligence. [/B]

But we are still faced with the problem that this is not experimental evidence. No independent variable was manipulated, so all these studies boil down to correlations.

 

[Rob Lister]

I understand the test but I would claim a cultural bias to the testing. (How did you do on the !Kung IQ test?)

Must ask!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is the !kung iq test?

 

[Jeff Corey]

You are dropped into the middle of the Kalahari Desert and are forced to find water and forage for berries and grubs.

 

[wittgenst3in]

You are dropped into the middle of the Kalahari Desert and are forced to find water and forage for berries and grubs.

Pass.

I think this without a doubt proves my intelligence.

 

[pupdog]

It has been shown repeatedly that inner city enviroments are very high in lead dust and other forms of enviromental lead.

And effects of lead on IQ were noted at least as early as 1943 (reported in Time magazine, December, based on a report published in American Journal of Diseases of Children).

 

[bpesta22]

I'm not arguing for the cause of the differences, just that they exist.

I dunno what causes them-- it could be lead.

I don't think anyone knows what causes the difference, but it's not cultural bias.

The tests are race blind in that they predict just as well for minorities as they do for whites.

I'd submit there's a whole bunch of IQ tests I'd score really poorly on. But, calling it an iq test doesn't make it one. There are issues like reliability and validity that determine if the test indeed measures iq.

As far as I know, unless the test measures "g", you can call it iq, but it wont predict any important social outcome. On the other hand, if the test measures g, it predicts every important social outcome, and unfortunately produces large race differences.

 

[Jeff Corey]

... On the other hand, if the test measures g, it predicts every important social outcome, and unfortunately produces large race differences.

Every important social outcome? They correlate about .2 to .3 with success in a number of different jobs. That's not accounting for much variance.
Wagner, R. K. (1997) Intelligence, training and employment. American Psychologist, 52, 1059-1069

 

[bpesta22]

Every important social outcome? They correlate about .2 to .3 with success in a number of different jobs. That's not accounting for much variance.
Wagner, R. K. (1997) Intelligence, training and employment. American Psychologist, 52, 1059-1069

I'm familiar with this article-- don't have it with me. I dont remember wagner claiming the r was this small. He's wrong though-- The value's closer to .5 for job performance based on several meta-analyses.

find anything that predicts better is the key.

and, again, plug even .2 into a utility formula and see how much practical value one could get from using it in selection.


Hey, how is lil lefever!

 

[Dancing David]

But we are still faced with the problem that this is not experimental evidence. No independent variable was manipulated, so all these studies boil down to correlations.

Well stated!
And a lack of demographic controls.