Possible effects of poll testing

[CAA Flagship]

You are the one that didn't want to answer my question on the "bottom third". THAT ended the conversation.

You are the bottom third...
Its an awkward conversation when you're in the room

Lame

[kalm]

You are the bottom third...
Its an awkward conversation when you're in the room

Lame

Oooooohhhhh. You got smoked, son!

[CAA Flagship]

Lame

Oooooohhhhh. You got smoked, son!

Yeah right.
All I did was ask a question and he didn't want to answer it.
Which is fine, but his paranoia is strong.

[Chizzang]

Oooooohhhhh. You got smoked, son!

Yeah right.
All I did was ask a question and he didn't want to answer it.
Which is fine, but his paranoia is strong.

I did actually answer your question
You're just not quite sharp enough to suss it out

You asked
what percentage of the bottom third are just lazy
and what percentage are not capable of learning

I said:
I don;t differentiate lazy from capable
technically the answer from me is simple to extrapolate
find the percentage who are listed as mentally disabled
remove them from the bottom third tally
and what you're left with is the answer

done...

[CAA Flagship]

Yeah right.
All I did was ask a question and he didn't want to answer it.
Which is fine, but his paranoia is strong.

I did actually answer your question
You're just not quite sharp enough to suss it out

You asked
what percentage of the bottom third are just lazy
and what percentage are not capable of learning

I said:
I don;t differentiate lazy from capable
technically the answer from me is simple to extrapolate
find the percentage who are listed as mentally disabled
remove them from the bottom third tally
and what you're left with is the answer

done...

Do you work alone or with a group of people?

[Chizzang]

I did actually answer your question
You're just not quite sharp enough to suss it out

You asked
what percentage of the bottom third are just lazy
and what percentage are not capable of learning

I said:
I don;t differentiate lazy from capable
technically the answer from me is simple to extrapolate
find the percentage who are listed as mentally disabled
remove them from the bottom third tally
and what you're left with is the answer

done...

Do you work alone or with a group of people?

Sometimes I work alone
Sometimes I work with a group of people

it's about 75% alone / 25% group

[CAA Flagship]

Do you work alone or with a group of people?

Sometimes I work alone
Sometimes I work with a group of people

it's about 75% alone / 25% group

Congrats. You finally answered a question with complete clarity.
It's a time saver.

[JohnStOnge]

http://therightstuff.biz/2014/11/05/rep ... democrats/

Wow I missed that earlier. That's good.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok let's go with exit polling on the last national election Democrats won. Presidential election 2012.

Note that the overall popular vote result was Obama 51%, Romney 47%.

One correlate with IQ is educational attainment. The lowest educational attainment group broken out by the 2012 exit polling report at http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politic ... /#exitPoll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is "No high school diploma." That group voted Obama 64%, Romney 35%.

Another correlate with IQ is income. The lowest income group broken out by the referenced exit polling report is "Under $30,000." That group voted Obama 63%, Romney 35%.

Then there's race. Sorry, but the lowest IQ group broken down is "Black." And that group voted Obama 93%, Romney 6%.

[kalm]

Ok let's go with exit polling on the last national election Democrats won. Presidential election 2012.

Note that the overall popular vote result was Obama 51%, Romney 47%.

One correlate with IQ is educational attainment. The lowest educational attainment group broken out by the 2012 exit polling report at http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politic ... /#exitPoll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is "No high school diploma." That group voted Obama 64%, Romney 35%.

Another correlate with IQ is income. The lowest income group broken out by the referenced exit polling report is "Under $30,000." That group voted Obama 63%, Romney 35%.

Then there's race. Sorry, but the lowest IQ group broken down is "Black." And that group voted Obama 93%, Romney 6%.

How did the wealthy smart Asians, Jews, and gays vote?

[JohnStOnge]

How did the wealthy smart Asians, Jews, and gays vote?

Again: That is irrelevant to the point. What we're talking about is how those on the "low" end vote.

But I'll go ahead and say that if we were talking about something like the top 15 percent in terms of IQ and I had to bet I'd bet that the Democrats typically get the majority of the vote among that group during national elections. But I also think it's by a relatively modest majority. Maybe something like 55% to 45%. And I'm not real confident about that because income is a correlate of IQ and if all you were looking at is income you'd conclude the highest IQ group votes Republican.

I think that what happens with the lower third or so is MUCH more important to the Democrats. First of all 33% is more than 15% and secondly the Democrats win by a much stronger majority. Something on the order of 2:1. Also there aren't any contrary indicators with the proposition that the lowest IQ groups vote Democrat like there is with the proposition that the highest IQ groups vote Democrat.

"The great unwashed" votes Democrat. We all know that. It's no secret.

[travelinman67]

Jesus, John, all this verbal flatulence about a problem that doesn't even exist except in your brain...

Next, we'll hear from the Donks that a consensus has concluded there is no problem.

[Skjellyfetti]

income is a correlate of IQ

wow. i'm pretty shocked we're seeing this admission from you.

[CitadelGrad]

Now look at NEAP scores by state.

Instead of allocating electoral votes and representation in Congress by population...... Let's weigh each state's electoral votes based on NEAP scores!! How about that?? I'm sure you'd be on board, right??

Are Southerns naturally and biologically dumber than northerners?

I'm sure you'll say that the South scores lower because they have more black people - but, maybe blacks score lower because they are concentrated in the South?

Blacks score lower than whites, Asians and spics everywhere, so no.

[JohnStOnge]

income is a correlate of IQ

wow. i'm pretty shocked we're seeing this admission from you.

The only thing I can figure as to why you would say that is that you're thinking that high income "causes" high IQ. I don't think so. I think it's more a matter of high IQ causing high income.

But it doesn't matter either way. The fact is that it's clear that lower income people overwhelmingly support Democrats and it's known that lower income people tend to have lower IQs.

Again: If you look at exit polls it's very clear that the least intelligent and least informed tend to vote Democrat. It's not even really debatable.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think it's just high income = high IQ.

But, social factors - including income - play a tremendous role in IQ scores.

Black children adopted into white households score similarly to white children.

The socially classified black adoptees, whose natural
parents were educationally average, scored above the
IQ and the school achievement mean of the white population.
Biological children of the adoptive parents
scored even higher. Genetic and environmental determinants
of differences among the black/interracial
adoptees were largely confounded. The high IQ scores
of the socially classified black adoptees indicate malleability
for IQ under rearing conditions that are relevant
to the tests and the schools.

http://www.kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Economic level of the parents - and, especially education level of the parents, plays a tremendous role in academic achievement and IQ scores of the parents.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think it's just high income = high IQ.

But, social factors - including income - play a tremendous role in IQ scores.

Black children adopted into white households score similarly to white children.

The socially classified black adoptees, whose natural
parents were educationally average, scored above the
IQ and the school achievement mean of the white population.
Biological children of the adoptive parents
scored even higher. Genetic and environmental determinants
of differences among the black/interracial
adoptees were largely confounded. The high IQ scores
of the socially classified black adoptees indicate malleability
for IQ under rearing conditions that are relevant
to the tests and the schools.

http://www.kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Economic level of the parents - and, especially education level of the parents, plays a tremendous role in academic achievement and IQ scores of the parents.

I just saw your post and will have to read the entire study in detail to fully comment. Also I think there's a good chance that this study was discussed in The Bell Curve since it was published in 1976 and the authors of The Bell Curve spent quite a bit of time discussing studies potentially contradicting what they were saying. In fact I think this one kind of rings a bell but not sure since it's been a long time since I read the book.

I will say this: Nobody says that environment plays no role. The kids in the study had good environments. However, if you just look at the adopted children the ones with two Black parents scored about one standard deviation lower than the ones with two White parents. The 25 adopted children with two White parents in the study averaged 111.5 while the adopted children in the study with two Black parents averaged 96.8. The difference is 14.7 and one standard deviation on an IQ test is 15 or 16. So, even in this study, when you look at adopted Blacks and adopted Whites raised in something like "equal" environments there's about a one standard deviation difference.

The authors do try explaining it away. But believe me when I tell you after a cursory scan that there is ammunition in that study for the "genetic differences" point of view. There's even the fact that the lowest scoring group among the adopted children was those with two Black parents, the highest scoring group was those with two White parents, and the group with one White and one Black parent was in between the other two. How could it fall any better for someone wanting to argue for genetics being a factor?

To me the authors should not have stated in the abstract that "The socially classified black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the white population" because what they were doing there is referring to the combined performance of 101 "interracial" children (White mother and Black father) and 29 Black children (two Black parents). I think they were telling the truth because the interracial children would be "socially classified" as Black. But it's misleading. The truth is that the 25 "completely" Black children scored BELOW the mean of the White population even though they were in very favorable environments where 25 White adopted children scored substantially above the overall White population mean. Within the range of environments they controlled things to, the IQ difference between racial groups was there and it was about as large as it is in the general population.

[houndawg]

I don't think it's just high income = high IQ.

But, social factors - including income - play a tremendous role in IQ scores.

Black children adopted into white households score similarly to white children.



http://www.kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Economic level of the parents - and, especially education level of the parents, plays a tremendous role in academic achievement and IQ scores of the parents.

I just saw your post and will have to read the entire study in detail to fully comment. Also I think there's a good chance that this study was discussed in The Bell Curve since it was published in 1976 and the authors of The Bell Curve spent quite a bit of time discussing studies potentially contradicting what they were saying. In fact I think this one kind of rings a bell but not sure since it's been a long time since I read the book.

I will say this: Nobody says that environment plays no role. The kids in the study had good environments. However, if you just look at the adopted children the ones with two Black parents scored about one standard deviation lower than the ones with two White parents. The 25 adopted children with two White parents in the study averaged 111.5 while the adopted children in the study with two Black parents averaged 96.8. The difference is 14.7 and one standard deviation on an IQ test is 15 or 16. So, even in this study, when you look at adopted Blacks and adopted Whites raised in something like "equal" environments there's about a one standard deviation difference.

The authors do try explaining it away. But believe me when I tell you after a cursory scan that there is ammunition in that study for the "genetic differences" point of view. There's even the fact that the lowest scoring group among the adopted children was those with two Black parents, the highest scoring group was those with two White parents, and the group with one White and one Black parent was in between the other two. How could it fall any better for someone wanting to argue for genetics being a factor?

To me the authors should not have stated in the abstract that "The socially classified black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the white population" because what they were doing there is referring to the combined performance of 101 "interracial" children (White mother and Black father) and 29 Black children (two Black parents). I think they were telling the truth because the interracial children would be "socially classified" as Black. But it's misleading. The truth is that the 25 "completely" Black children scored BELOW the mean of the White population even though they were in very favorable environments where 25 White adopted children scored substantially above the overall White population mean. Within the range of environments they controlled things to, the IQ difference between racial groups was there and it was about as large as it is in the general population.

Take your time.

[∞∞∞]

Gotta head to work so I'll keep it short, but my argument is that while understanding civics is important, I don't think it should matter for voting. Ultimately, laws are simple extensions of a society's ideals. While history/education can shape the minds of voters, the voters have a right to live and shape a government based on their beliefs. If people 50 years from now want to make the United States into a socialist nation, it is their right as a collective community, whether they understand history or not.

Our laws are not set in stone, even the Constitution. They can be changed or thrown out at anytime for whatever reason if society deems them irrelevant or unnecessary to their lives.

[kalm]

Gotta head to work so I'll keep it short, but my argument is that while understanding civics is important, I don't think it should matter for voting. Ultimately, laws are simple extensions of a society's ideals. While history/education can shape the minds of voters, the voters have a right to live and shape a government based on their beliefs. If people 50 years from now want to make the United States into a socialist nation, it is their right as a collective community, whether they understand history or not.

Our laws are not set in stone, even the Constitution. They can be changed or thrown out at anytime for whatever reason if society deems them irrelevant or unnecessary to their lives.

Heresy!

[JohnStOnge]

Ok Sky I found a discussion of that Minnesota transracial adoption study in the document at http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30 ... 0years.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The start of the discussion is on page 256. The major crux of it is basically what I identified. If you actually look at how adopted children in each of the three groups did the results line up with what would be expected from a circumstance in which genetics is a factor in racial group IQ differences. Children of two Black parents scored lowest, children of one Black parent and one White parent scored second, and Children of two White parents scored highest.

Some additional information, though, is that the study you linked reported results of testing the children at age 7. There was follow up testing when the children reached 17. And in that follow up testing things really look good for the argument of genetics as a factor. Here are the IQ means of the adopted children in each group at age 17:

Two White Parents 106
One White and One Black Parent 99
Two Black Parents 89

Given the sample size for the "Two Black Parent" children, a mean of 89 for a sample like that given a population distribution characterized by a mean of 85 and a standard deviation of 15 could easily occur by random chance. 89 is less than one "standard error" above 85; and the convention is to start saying it's not chance when the sample mean is about two standard errors away from the population mean. So that 89 you see for the "Two Black Parents" kids at 17 doesn't provide sufficient evidence to say that being adopted by high performing White parents had any effect at all.

[CAA Flagship]

Gotta head to work so I'll keep it short, but my argument is that while understanding civics is important, I don't think it should matter for voting. Ultimately, laws are simple extensions of a society's ideals. While history/education can shape the minds of voters, the voters have a right to live and shape a government based on their beliefs. If people 50 years from now want to make the United States into a socialist nation, it is their right as a collective community, whether they understand history or not.

Our laws are not set in stone, even the Constitution. They can be changed or thrown out at anytime for whatever reason if society deems them irrelevant or unnecessary to their lives.

This is all true. However, many people believe the "promises" of a presidential candidate even though the realistic chances are slim due to the control of Congress, or don't understand the ramifications of such promises.

[Skjellyfetti]

This is all true. However, many people believe the "promises" of a presidential candidate even though the realistic chances are slim due to the control of Congress, or don't understand the ramifications of such promises.

Well, that's true across the board.

So, it speaks more toward the futility of voting and of a republican democracy than it does about who should vote or not. I don't think anyone fulfills all campaign promises.

[travelinman67]

Gotta head to work so I'll keep it short, but my argument is that while understanding civics is important, I don't think it should matter for voting. Ultimately, laws are simple extensions of a society's ideals. While history/education can shape the minds of voters, the voters have a right to live and shape a government based on their beliefs. If people 50 years from now want to make the United States into a socialist nation, it is their right as a collective community, whether they understand history or not.

Our laws are not set in stone, even the Constitution. They can be changed or thrown out at anytime for whatever reason if society deems them irrelevant or unnecessary to their lives.

In theory, yes. Yet we are now witnessing an unlawful executive branch usurping existing constitutional safeguards of voting law, attempting to permanently hijack the electoral system.

Don't think my statement is valid? Look at California.

Frankly, I don't feel that the non-Democrats are responding adequately to this threat to our Nation's democratic system.

Boehner and Mitchell have dropped the ball. Appropriately they should appoint a Special Counsel to "investigate" Executive Branch actions, and said Special Counsel should be funded and empowered to initiate legal estoppel: Then, BURY the White House in legal action.
Though it may seem in the last 18 months initiating legal action would be counter-productive, much of these "Executive Order" end runs will ultimately be reversed, so initiating the actions now simply hastens the inevitable.

[houndawg]

Gotta head to work so I'll keep it short, but my argument is that while understanding civics is important, I don't think it should matter for voting. Ultimately, laws are simple extensions of a society's ideals. While history/education can shape the minds of voters, the voters have a right to live and shape a government based on their beliefs. If people 50 years from now want to make the United States into a socialist nation, it is their right as a collective community, whether they understand history or not.

Our laws are not set in stone, even the Constitution. They can be changed or thrown out at anytime for whatever reason if society deems them irrelevant or unnecessary to their lives.

In theory, yes. Yet we are now witnessing an unlawful executive branch usurping existing constitutional safeguards of voting law, attempting to permanently hijack the electoral system.

Don't think my statement is valid? Look at California.

Frankly, I don't feel that the non-Democrats are responding adequately to this threat to our Nation's democratic system.

Boehner and Mitchell have dropped the ball. Appropriately they should appoint a Special Counsel to "investigate" Executive Branch actions, and said Special Counsel should be funded and empowered to initiate legal estoppel: Then, BURY the White House in legal action.
Though it may seem in the last 18 months initiating legal action would be counter-productive, much of these "Executive Order" end runs will ultimately be reversed, so initiating the actions now simply hastens the inevitable.

Sure its valid. Where you been for the last 30 years?