Egalitarianism

[JohnStOnge]

I like that one! God help me, I can't even finish JSO's posts.

What? Did you not go the Harvard?

[Ivytalk]

I like that one! God help me, I can't even finish JSO's posts.

What? Did you not go the Harvard?

Yeah, but we have short attention spans, too!

[JohnStOnge]

By your own admission there could be multiple other variables that play into this difference. IMHO, you took an end result (testing inequities) and used convenient stereotypes to build a model to explain it. Maybe you're right, maybe not.

What I did was first show that certain environmental factors have a substantial effect then show that in spite of that Asians as disadvantaged as people could be identified as being in terms of those factors scored higher than Blacks who are as advantaged as people could be identified as being in terms of those factors.

"Stereotypes" are very often generally correct in the sense intended. "Men are taller than women" is a sterotype. It is not true in that every man is not taller than every woman. But it is true in the sense that men are taller on average.

Anyway, the main point of the post at the start of this thread is that the data are not inconsistent with the belief that there is an inherent difference between Asians and Blacks in terms of distributions of math aptitudes. They do not prove that because they are observational data. But you are not going to make the differences between Asians and Blacks in scores on math tests go away by "controlling" for environmental variables. You're not even going to come anywhere remotely close to doing that.

[JohnStOnge]

The Japanese rode the above quote all the way to world class manufacturing capability

Elaborate.

[JohnStOnge]

would venture that the CV, R-squared, p and t values for that correlation are strong enough to make a solid argument against smoking....more so than the argument being posed here.

I think you may be underestimating how big a factor "race" is in aptitude and IQ scores in terms of association. I think that in those NAEP scores, for example, race may be the biggest single factor. I think that if there is not every bit as much evidence that race "causes" differences in distributions of test scores as there is that cigarette smoking causes cancer in terms of just the observational data available it's pretty darned close.

[youngterrier]

too bad that's not a Twain quote. It's by Benjamin Disraeli

[∞∞∞]

Well God can't be proven in controlled scientific experiments either, but we still believe in that, right?

JSO, life is a just one large ongoing experiment. We can extrapolate a lot of data from it; not everything has to be done in a lab to be proven. Cigarettes cause cancer, and while we might not know exactly why (and honestly, I think we do because I recall reading some scientific journals on the reason why...something about carcinogens and how they infiltrate and warp cells), we know that they are directly linked with several forms of cancerous cells.

edit: while I couldn't find anything online about why cigarettes cause cancer (just that they do), there is a plethora of science out there explaining how carcinogens directly create cancer and the processes involved with disrupting the cells. With cigarettes, you're just intaking those carcinogens that have been scientifically proven to create cancer. Making the "why" link from there should'nt be hard.

[ASUG8]

would venture that the CV, R-squared, p and t values for that correlation are strong enough to make a solid argument against smoking....more so than the argument being posed here.

I think you may be underestimating how big a factor "race" is in aptitude and IQ scores in terms of association. I think that in those NAEP scores, for example, race may be the biggest single factor. I think that if there is not every bit as much evidence that race "causes" differences in distributions of test scores as there is that cigarette smoking causes cancer in terms of just the observational data available it's pretty darned close.

If the groups were prohibited from checking a "race" box do you think you would still chase down the same model? My point is, you could say that blind group A performs better than group B for some reason - you could build a model that f(x)=income+locality+age+grade completed.....ad nauseum. If you include enough variables you get t and p values that validate that the addition or subtraction of independent variables either improve or degrade your overall CV for the model. You can use logarithmic transformation or ln(x) of variables, whatever works...but the bottom line is that by knowing that you have a racial group you can't help but have inherent biases and want to pick and choose the independent variables you include in your model - it's not a personal attack, it's human - for the most part our perceptions are shaped by what we experience or what we're told through friends or media.

My point is that stats don't lie and are without bias, but the creation of the model and the model builder have inherent bias 99.9% of the time. *



* stat completely made up.

[JohnStOnge]

too bad that's not a Twain quote. It's by Benjamin Disraeli

My young friend. Mark Twain may have attributed the idea to Disreali but it IS a Mark Twain quote. And there are questions as to whether or not Twain was correct in attributing the idea to Disreali. See http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

[JohnStOnge]

My point is that stats don't lie and are without bias, but the creation of the model and the model builder have inherent bias 99.9% of the time

There's really no model involved here. I just reported sampling results. I did refer to models in a sense when I talked about attempting to "control" for other factors. But there is no way anybody is going to "explain" away the "race" factor in scores on aptitude and IQ tests by "controlling" for other factors.

I agree that one has to be very careful about believing what people say on the basis of models attempting to make sense of observational data. I do agree that the bias of the investigator can play a significant role.

But I gave you a link to the NAEP query interface. You can play with the data all you want for yourself. And if you're honest with yourself you're not going to "explain" the "race" factor away.

[JohnStOnge]

Well God can't be proven in controlled scientific experiments either, but we still believe in that, right?

JSO, life is a just one large ongoing experiment. We can extrapolate a lot of data from it; not everything has to be done in a lab to be proven. Cigarettes cause cancer, and while we might not know exactly why (and honestly, I think we do because I recall reading some scientific journals on the reason why...something about carcinogens and how they infiltrate and warp cells), we know that they are directly linked with several forms of cancerous cells.

edit: while I couldn't find anything online about why cigarettes cause cancer (just that they do), there is a plethora of science out there explaining how carcinogens directly create cancer and the processes involved with disrupting the cells. With cigarettes, you're just intaking those carcinogens that have been scientifically proven to create cancer. Making the "why" link from there should'nt be hard.

Again, ODU, a drug company wishing to claim its new drug has some positive effect would not be allowed to do so on the basis of the kind of evidence there is for concluding that smoking causes cancer. That really IS true.

A drug company would have to have completed clinical trials...controled experiments on human beings...with those trials having demonstrated the claimed effect. Without that there would be no way, no how, no possibility that they could legally make the claim.

And the "smoking causes cancer" conclusion does not have that kind of support. It just doesn't.

[Pwns]

The whole concept of comparing IQ scores of group X with group Y sort of lost credibility with me on a study that showed a higher level of physical attractiveness corresponded with higher IQ scores. You can find a pdf of the published paper if you just type in "why beautiful people are more intelligent" into Google. Sorry, but my experience is the exact opposite, especially when it comes to women. There's also a study purporting to show taller people are smarter and consistent IQ gaps favoring men over women, and I'm pretty skeptical of those as well.

My problem isn't that what I want to be true about race and IQ might not be, it's just that I think psychometrics is a pseudoscience.

[JohnStOnge]

The whole concept of comparing IQ scores of group X with group Y sort of lost credibility with me on a study that showed a higher level of physical attractiveness corresponded with higher IQ scores. You can find a pdf of the published paper if you just type in "why beautiful people are more intelligent" into Google. Sorry, but my experience is the exact opposite, especially when it comes to women. There's also a study purporting to show taller people are smarter and consistent IQ gaps favoring men over women, and I'm pretty skeptical of those as well.

My problem isn't that what I want to be true about race and IQ might not be, it's just that I think psychometrics is a pseudoscience.

I was not able to actually look at the pdf document because my virus scan blocked it. But I saw some articles on it such as this: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... elligent-i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would think that there is not something to intelligence testing. For instance: Do you honestly believe that someone who tested at IQ 85 upon graduating from high school has a reasonable chance of becoming an engineer or a medical doctor?

Of COURSE there is error. It's not something that can be directly, physically measured like height or weight. But there are reams of data on associations between IQ and success. Pick any vocation you think requires higher than average intelligence. College Professor. Engineer. Medical Doctor. Lawyer (as much as it pains me to say it). Do you really have any doubt that if you were to test people in any of those groups that the average IQ would be well above the overall population average of 100? What about if you'd tested them when they were 17? Do you have any doubt that they still would've had average IQ well above 100?

[kalm]

The whole concept of comparing IQ scores of group X with group Y sort of lost credibility with me on a study that showed a higher level of physical attractiveness corresponded with higher IQ scores. You can find a pdf of the published paper if you just type in "why beautiful people are more intelligent" into Google. Sorry, but my experience is the exact opposite, especially when it comes to women. There's also a study purporting to show taller people are smarter and consistent IQ gaps favoring men over women, and I'm pretty skeptical of those as well.

My problem isn't that what I want to be true about race and IQ might not be, it's just that I think psychometrics is a pseudoscience.

I was not able to actually look at the pdf document because my virus scan blocked it. But I saw some articles on it such as this: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... elligent-i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would think that there is not something to intelligence testing. For instance: Do you honestly believe that someone who tested at IQ 85 upon graduating from high school has a reasonable chance of becoming an engineer or a medical doctor?

Of COURSE there is error. It's not something that can be directly, physically measured like height or weight. But there are reams of data on associations between IQ and success. Pick any vocation you think requires higher than average intelligence. College Professor. Engineer. Medical Doctor. Lawyer (as much as it pains me to say it). Do you really have any doubt that if you were to test people in any of those groups that the average IQ would be well above the overall population average of 100? What about if you'd tested them when they were 17? Do you have any doubt that they still would've had average IQ well above 100?

How do you define success? And what about work ethic? I'll bet there's some really smart but lazy high school dropouts and more than a few stupid and hardworking professionals.

Also George W Bush.

[JohnStOnge]

How do you define success? And what about work ethic? I'll bet there's some really smart but lazy high school dropouts and more than a few stupid and hardworking professionals.

Also George W Bush.

I once read a book by Richard Hernstein called IQ and the Meritocracy. He defined success according to a poll in which differrent occupations/professions were rated by respondents. In other words what people perceive as success. But you could also just use income and you'd get a pretty strong association with IQ.

George Bush is highly successful and almost certainly has a well above-average IQ. It has been estimated at around 120 or 130 based on his SAT score. His SAT score was 1206. An SAT score of 1206 was more "impressive" when Bush took the test than it is now because the test has been "recentered."

Here is a site for estimating IQ from SAT score:

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can figure out about what the IQ estimate for a pre-1974 SAT score of 1206 would be for yourself.

It's been a while but I have always said that the "Bush is stupid" thing is pretty much self evidently nonsense based on things like his SAT score, the fact that he got a graduate degree, etc.

[JohnStOnge]

I'll bet there's some really smart but lazy high school dropouts and more than a few stupid and hardworking professionals.

In that Hernstein book I mentioned there was a graph of the association between IQ and success as he defined it. The association was such that the variation in success levels was small and there wasn't much dispersion at the low end of the IQ scale but as one moved up the scale the variation and dispersion increased. The idea was that having a very high IQ did not guarantee success but having a very low one made what people would perceive as a high success level very unlikely.

It is very unlikely, for instance, that someone with an IQ of 85 will end up as a medical doctor. But it may not be as unlikely that a person with a 140 IQ will end up destitute.