Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

black people are supposedly "intellectually inferior"? Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    It is not a conspiracy theory it is a fact that will be confirmed by many scientists especially in genetics.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299305/



    IQ is rubbish? IQ correlates heavily with all measures of intelligence and cognative ability, also with educational and professional achievement. It is the best way to quantify mental ability.



    Source please, also you haven't sourced the last statement you made about African immigrants even though it is irrelevant.



    Not being in education in the past doesn't mean you would have a lower IQ today. Lol holocaust denial, mods I hope you know that is illegal under EU law.

    Ok so why are black people underperforming today since they now go to schools?
    Yeah, right. PC rubbish.

    No it isn't. If IQ was good then people would use IQ tests to test say mathematical ability. Yet, they don't. Note, if you have ever done an IQ test the mathematics on the test and normally trivial and don't test say ability to prove theorems, which is the best measure of mathematical ability, as pure maths is based on that.

    Source for what. As it put down black people in UK meet the government standards. Also, lol I will find you it tomorrow as I got an improtant maths test tomorrow.

    But parents woud not have a history of going to uni e.t.c. Actually, most students have parents that have went to uni espically at top uni.

    P.S. Either way you pretty certain that you are superior to black people so its hard to change your mind. I guess you are biased being a stromfront member. But, you could also say I'm biased being half black.

    (Original post by Chi019)
    It predicts academic performance. For instance, Ashkenazi Jews average about 110 and East Asians about 105. And sure enough at the upper end of the distribution these groups are overrepresented. The value of it is discussed here.
    It doesn't predict who would be at the top of there fields. Again, a high IQ doesn't really correlated to being the best academically like say being the next Einstein. Note, also people who believe this are more likely to fail or fall victim to cult of genius.

    http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career...s-to-do-maths/

    This might interest you. Also this
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.300

    You do agree that a person with so called someone with genius genes would have to work harder at a field to be at the top? Or do you have the romatic view?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)
    Yeah, right. PC rubbish.

    No it isn't. If IQ was good then people would use IQ tests to test say mathematical ability. Yet, they don't.

    http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career...s-to-do-maths/

    This might interest you. Also this
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.300

    You do agree that a person with so called someone with genius genes would have to work harder at a field to be at the top? Or do you have the romatic view?
    It does a pretty good job for predicting science success:

    Can psychometrics separate the top .1 percent from the top 1 percent in ability? Yes: SAT-M quartile within top 1 percent predicts future scientific success, even when the testing is done at age 13. The top quartile clearly outperforms the lower quartiles. These results strongly refute the "IQ above 120 doesn't matter" claim, at least in fields like science and engineering; everyone in this sample is above 120 and the top quartile are at the 1 in 10,000 level. The data comes from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), a planned 50-year longitudinal study of intellectual talent...

    Ability Differences Among People Who Have Commensurate Degrees Matter for Scientific Creativity

    Gregory Park, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow

    Vanderbilt University

    ABSTRACT—A sample of 1,586 intellectually talented adolescents (top 1%) were assessed on the math portion of the SAT by age 13 and tracked for more than 25 years. Patents and scientific publications were used as criteria for scientific and technological accomplishment. Participants were categorized according to whether their terminal degree was a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate degree, and within these degree groupings, the proportion of participants with at least one patent or scientific publication in adulthood increased as a function of this early SAT assessment. Information about individual differences in cognitive ability (even when measured in early adolescence) can predict differential creative potential in science and technology within populations that have advanced educational degrees.
    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/01...ics-works.html

    And for academics generally. Three recent studies discussed here:

    Deary's study looked at how cognitive ability measured at age 11 predicted academic achievement at age 16. Unsurprisingly, the IQ-Achievement correlations for the Sciences are around .6 (math highest, chemistry lowest), with similar coefficients form Arts/Humanities and Social Studies. Surprisingly, for practical fields (e.g., P.E., Art) the coefficients are a little lower, but not that much, averaging around .5. Here is a pic of the correlation table: (the n is in parentheses; it obviously changes as not every student took every class)...

    Deary took the analysis a step further however and did a little latent variable modeling. As the IQ test had three components/subtests (verbal, nonverbal, quantitative), he correlated a latent g factor with a latent academic factor using the following subtests: English, English Literature, Math, Science, Geography, French (n=12519). The correlation between the latent factors was .81. That is: 66% of the variance in latent (general) academic achievement can be explained by latent cognitive ability---measured 5 years previously. While he hypothesizes that such things as "school ethos" and "parental support" are good areas to search for the other 34%, based on Rohode's work, it is likely going to be found in residual, first order factors (see Carroll or McGrew).

    Take home message: While general cognitive ability and academic achievement are not isomorphic, the former is necessary for the latter, while the converse is not necessarily true. Spearman suggested this more than a century ago, and, to quote the last sentence in Deary's work,

    These data establish the validity of g for this important life outcome.
    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/iq-...chievement.php

    You do agree that a person with so called someone with genius genes would have to work harder at a field to be at the top? Or do you have the romatic view?
    Thanks for the link. I think that if you look at successful people they all worked hard to achieve their success, even if they're extremely talented. I like this quote. Good luck with your exam tomorrow.


    Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning”

    Hesiod
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    It (IQ) predicts academic performance.

    I'm sorry but I don't agree with that. I don't think IQ predicts academic performance without considering time and effort the individual puts into school.

    You could have an IQ of 120, but if you are skipping school, have people causing disturbance during classes, have a ****, unstable background where there's disturbance at home and you cant study, plus a negative attitude towards education from your peers and having the belief that others dont expect you to achieve and the general discontent and disillusionment of some black youths with the government, police, racism etc.
    It will make it much more difficult for you to acheive as well as the person (with an IQ also of 120) who wants to acheive, is encouranged to achieve and has the nurturing home and school environment to do so.

    An IQ is only an accurate measure of academic performance if everyone has the exact learning conditions.

    I have an IQ of (years ago tested) above average, but not genius 118.
    I spent much of school studying when I was younger and then during my GCSEs I just smoked a load of weed and couldnt be bothered to study. As a result my grades plummeted and my final grades were way less than expected, although just enough to do my A levels. I put more effort into my A levels and hey presto, I did way, way better than my expected grades.

    The only changing variable was effort. My IQ remained constant. I feel this can be applied to underachieving black children. Those that underacheive may not have the motivation to try their best and that could be for very many reasons.

    Through personal experience I can say that growing up was hard in a mostly white small town.

    It's hard for a little girl to understand why noone will include her in kiss chase, why she is called "ugly" and "monkey" at school and ridiculed for reasons none other than race. And as I got older I learnt more about black history and slave trade. The combination of negative, racist experiences and knowledge of persecution of blacks in the slave trade, the resistance of the caribbeans (one set of my grandparents) in the 60s during the formative years pretty much made me think I was unwelcome. I believed I was at the bottom of the social class hierachy, felt like a scum bag and I used to believe that I was an unlikeable person. I wasnt assertive and weak-willed because these people had drilled into me what they thought of me so hard I began to believe it myself.

    This made me believe that I wouldnt succeed and I still have trouble believing I am GOOD enough to be successful, but I was able to overcome my poor self belief just enough by lots and lots of counselling. Some people wouldnt have the balls to seek help like I did.

    This, I know is only one story, but the fact that you are saying "the slave trade ended years ago, there is no reason why black people shouldnt be motivated" forgets that many black people still experience racism which can make some of them defensive and untrusting.

    take the black stereotype. Lazy, dumb, rude and violent. that is what is expected.

    Although Jews and East asians could live in poverty, the environment in which they live mostly encourages to work hard and to believe that you can get there in the end, when a lot of black british children are born to black parents who have been disillusioned through harsh racism when they grew up 30 or so years ago.

    Recently, it seems like muslims are in the spotlight for hatred, but I feel this has only really become prominent post 9/11 in the 2000s. To be honest, I feel really sorry for the majority of muslims. They just want to get on with their life and don't want to convert people or the UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Although Jews and East asians could live in poverty, the environment in which they live mostly encourages to work hard and to believe that you can get there in the end,
    Yes, but transracial adoption studies show similar trends - ie. even East Asians raised in white homes (remarkably including some malnourished Korean adoptees) still perform above average. In the Scarr Transracial Adoption study children of mixed ancestry who were thought to be black (so subject to the kind of expections you refer to) averaged between the the white adoptees and the adoptees with two black parents. That is consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis. Also differences show up at age 3 before the stereotypes would have an effect. It's also hard to see how this would affect things like reaction time measures, or make a difference to repeating digits back (where there is little difference in performance) and repeating digits in reverse where the difference increases.

    http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004064.html

    All these arguments have been extensively addressed in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2. You can read the arguments & replies here.

    www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/

    I do agree though that personal factors obviously affect whether someone makes the most of their ability. Ultimately that's what people should focus on.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    It does a pretty good job for predicting science success:

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/01...ics-works.html

    And for academics generally. Three recent studies discussed here:



    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/iq-...chievement.php



    Thanks for the link. I think that if you look at successful people they all worked hard to achieve their success, even if they're extremely talented. I like this quote. Good luck with your exam tomorrow.
    Hmmm, I will read them tomorrow.

    To be fair, if genetics played a big part surely other factors like mental illnesses would also play a more improtant role. For example, autism is sometimes linked to enhanced intelligence and bipolar disorder to enhanced creativity.

    Certainly, I think me being above average at maths is linked to OCD. A study proposed it when looking at japanese people with OCD.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)
    Hmmm, I will read them tomorrow.

    To be fair, if genetics played a big part surely other factors like mental illnesses would also play a more improtant role. For example, autism is sometimes linked to enhanced intelligence and bipolar disorder to enhanced creativity.

    Certainly, I think me being above average at maths is linked to OCD. A study proposed it when looking at japanese people with OCD.
    Yeah, well if you look at famous artists or poets they often have problems with forms of mental illness.

    In science/tech guys like Issac Newton, Einstein and Bill Gates are said to present with signs of mild aspergers. People & brains are complicated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've just had a thought.

    Some people have been using the Adoption studies as evidence that black people's lower intelligence is genetic.

    What you've forgotten is that the baby's brain starts developing in the womb. So if the pregnant woman has poor nutrition - which many African mothers do - then environmental effects have still come into play.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    I've just had a thought.

    Some people have been using the Adoption studies as evidence that black people's lower intelligence is genetic.

    What you've forgotten is that the baby's brain starts developing in the womb. So if the pregnant woman has poor nutrition - which many African mothers do - then environmental effects have still come into play.

    Apparently, all the races have slightly different nutritional requirements and some foods that are good for some races are not for others(i.e milk can cause diarrhoea in Black people but white people can digest it much better). Black and white people who eat the same, may not be benefiting from their diet the same.

    I guess you also have to ponder the circumstances why the children are being adopted as well. I guess you dont know the situations of the biological mothers. The studies are American and I'm not sure 100% but I think there is a much higher incidence of meths/crack addiction in lower socioeconomic black classes in comparison to the UK. And through reading news articles, I've seen that there might be a big problem with poor black women, prostitution and meths/crack addiction in the US. There may be quite a few children born in these conditions, which end up being put up for adoption. I'm not sure about how meths/crack abuse and prostitution is represented in the other races in comparison, but this possibility needs to be addressed.

    Meths addiction can change the way you self-maintain, loss of appetitie and they tend to develop a sweet tooth, which reduces the variedness of their diet. I havent got any sources to prove this (cause I cant be arsed) but I would have thought that would bear some importance when considering the validity of the data when applying findings to the UK. If I'm right, you cant generalise the findings to the whole black population all over the world because there are too many confounding variables in the American study you're not measuring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    I've just had a thought.

    Some people have been using the Adoption studies as evidence that black people's lower intelligence is genetic.

    What you've forgotten is that the baby's brain starts developing in the womb. So if the pregnant woman has poor nutrition - which many African mothers do - then environmental effects have still come into play.
    They are compared to white children who have also been adopted, whose biological parents would have suffered from the same problems of poor diet and drug addiction etc. So kind of a logic fail there...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    They are compared to white children who have also been adopted, whose biological parents would have suffered from the same problems of poor diet and drug addiction etc. So kind of a logic fail there...
    I thought the particular adoption study mentioned involved adopted children from Africa.

    I could be completely wrong. I can't be bothered to go back and check.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    I've just had a thought.

    Some people have been using the Adoption studies as evidence that black people's lower intelligence is genetic.

    What you've forgotten is that the baby's brain starts developing in the womb. So if the pregnant woman has poor nutrition - which many African mothers do - then environmental effects have still come into play.
    They do indeed. Exposure to toxins (ie. alcohol, drugs) in the womb can lower intelligence.

    The adoption studies are more useful in revealing the impact of the shared family environment & whether that boosts scores much. In terms of controlling for poor nutrition, presumably the children from high SES households (in the graph above) wouldn't have that problem. So you'd look at other factors.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    They are compared to white children who have also been adopted, whose biological parents would have suffered from the same problems of poor diet and drug addiction etc. So kind of a logic fail there...
    I dont think it's a fail argument. Drug addiction may disproportionately affect one race more than the other. And particularly as a greater proportion Black people live under the poverty line in the UK, I wouldnt be suprised that drug addiction would be higher in some black populations.

    Black and white people may have different diets (black US southern food is very different to what white US people might eat) as culture can have a large input into food choice.

    Both diets may be poor, but their diets could be deficient in different ways which could lead to different deficiency illnesses.

    However. I'm talking US here, not UK.

    In the UK, I know a lot of African families stand true to their roots and eat African food whilst Caribbeans are more likely to be more flexible with their eating habits and eat more UK/American food than the Africans. Of course I'm speaking from observation here, but I've worked with projects about eating and lower incomes (surestart) in Sheffield, so I've spoken first hand with different families to find out about how they eat.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    They do indeed. Exposure to toxins (ie. alcohol, drugs) in the womb can lower intelligence.

    The adoption studies are more useful in revealing the impact of the shared family environment & whether that boosts scores much. In terms of controlling for poor nutrition, presumably the children from high SES households (in the graph above) wouldn't have that problem. So you'd look at other factors.

    But you still dont know if you are starting from an even playing field if you dont take into consideration maternal health status. You have to take into consideration the reasons why the children were taken into care before making a FAIR comparison. Poverty happens for different reasons. Poverty is not equal and hasn't the same repercussions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eveiebaby)
    I dont think it's a fail argument. Drug addiction may disproportionately affect one race more than the other. And particularly as a greater proportion Black people live under the poverty line in the UK, I wouldnt be suprised that drug addiction would be higher in some black populations.

    Black and white people may have different diets (black US southern food is very different to what white US people might eat) as culture can have a large input into food choice.

    Both diets may be poor, but their diets could be deficient in different ways which could lead to different deficiency illnesses.

    However. I'm talking US here, not UK.

    In the UK, I know a lot of African families stand true to their roots and eat African food whilst Caribbeans are more likely to be more flexible with their eating habits and eat more UK/American food than the Africans. Of course I'm speaking from observation here, but I've worked with projects about eating and lower incomes (surestart) in Sheffield, so I've spoken first hand with different families to find out about how they eat.
    I don't think it's hard to eat well on very little amounts of money. The entire Indian subcontinent seems to eat rather well for like £1 a day. I don't think diet within the womb is something to hide behind.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I don't think it's hard to eat well on very little amounts of money. The entire Indian subcontinent seems to eat rather well for like £1 a day. I don't think diet within the womb is something to hide behind.

    It's fairly easy to buy the right food if you are living on little money, but you dont consider all that you need to eat well. You need the right cooking utensils, you need to live fairly near a shop that sells fresh food. Many people don't live very near a supermarket and many (myself included) cant afford to have a car. This means that you may be heavily reliant on your local cornershop, "Happy Shopper" or whatever equivalent and we all know that the "fresh" fruit and veg is very limited (few brown bananas and dried out oranges), has been there for weeks and looks really unappetising coz noone buys it. However, there's lots of food which has a long best before date full of fat, salt and sugar, as they preserve food. Obviously they arent good for your health if they dominate your diet but some people's food choices arent equal to others.

    Indian people in India eat freshly grown food, most likely sold in a market or grown fresh themselves. In the UK we depend on shops for our food. It's not a fair comparison in the slightest. Their climate is wetter than in Africa too. There are parts of Africa where hardly anything grows so people just have to make do with whatever takes root. I've seen cases of people eating mud cakes bound with margerine because they cant grow crops in the dusty earth and are too poor to buy anything. That is hardly THEIR fault.

    Also you need to know what's healthy and what's not. It sounds pretty common sense to you and I, but many get confused, nutrition is much more complex than you realise (I studies nutrition in the UK, In Africa and other LEDCs to find out what the barriers to good nutrition were) and labelling still isnt that clear.

    Then you need to know how to cook healthy food.

    But first of all you have to care about your health and the food you put inside your body. Not everyone cares and food habits are very hard to change, as I have learnt through working with expectant mothers running worshops on how to improve cooking methods (i.e simple things like not boiling your veg to death)

    Eating well is not as simple as you put it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.