Job Discussion Forums

[waltertoo]

http://charlesmartelsociety.org/toq/ 2005-04-26
The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, a publication of the American Psychological Association, examines racial differences in IQ and concludes that disparities between Asians, whites, and blacks are at least 50 percent genetic. “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, devotes 60 pages to ten categories of research evidence, including intelligence test scores from around the world, brain size differences, the effects of transracial adoptions and racial admixture, evolutionary theory, and arguments from cultural determinists. The psychology professors suggest that the demonstrable hereditary differences in mentality between the major races should cause rethinking and reform of public policies that are based on the illusions that the races are of equal mental capability and that therefore disparities in achievement must be due to racial discrimination. Rushton and Jensen’s “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” may prove to be as much of a landmark as Jensen’s “How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement” in the February 1969 [/]Harvard Educational Review.

[Glenski]

Couldn't find the article you mentioned in a quick glance, but here's my first impression.

IQ tests are not always written for everyone. Discrepancies in scores are often the result of who wrote it vs. who took it.

[moonraven]

Didn't we already beat this to death--or at least unconscious--in a previous thread?

Standardized tests all measure one's ability to take standardized tests and one's degree of aculturation to the societal norms expressed in the test.

[waltertoo]

Group x is not naturally stupid, group x just can't seem to do well on standardized tests - decade, after decade, after decade, after decade, after decade.

[ls650]

[schwa]

Rushton is widely recognized as a fraudulent scientist & a racist flake.
http://www.geocities.com/sailerfraud/rushton.html

Whats the OP's point?

[waltertoo]

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, a publication of the American Psychological Association, does not agree with you.

[distiller]

Actually, I'd be quite surprised if all the staff and contributors to that journal agree with the writers ascertains. In fact if you had bothered to even glance at the next two articles entitled Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen and There are no public-policy implicatons: A reply to Rushton and Jensen you would know that. Here is the abstract of the former:


J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (see record 2005-03637-001) ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black-White IQ gap. A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black-White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

As you can see this is a debate that is ongoing and in reality Rushton is often seen as a fringe personality. That aside, it is misrepresentative to a take an idea from a journal and present it as that journals take on the situation. Furthermore it is intellectually lazy to investigate a position so little that it is completely discredited after a mere 5 minutes of research by a lay person such as myself. Better luck next time, son.

[waltertoo]

When a scientific journal publishes an extensive article by scholar x, it is safe to assume that no matter how unpalatable to the pathetic politically correct crowd it may be that the journal is lending its support to the scientific credibility of the authors.
It is safe to assume that the pathetic politically correct crowd will respond to their failure to suppress the article with a demand to have a rebuttle article or two place in the journal.
There is no "dispassionate reading of the evidence" possible to the PCs since their motivation is power and manipulation not scientific truth. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the evidence would know that the effect of intervention to raise IQs on a lasting basis have been a failure and that ongoing identical twin studies have disappointed the egalitarian fantasies of their authors.

[moonraven]

Thank you, cut-rate Samuel Huntington. Want to talk about clash of cultures (100% bogus) and how the Hispanics are taking over the US next?

Give us a break, will you?

[Justin Trullinger]

As it has relatively little to do with teaching, I imagine this thread is about to be locked...but while it's open, my two cents worth is that in my classes, I've noticed little racial difference in ability. (Except maybe in dancing, but I know plenty of cultural features that make that seem more nurture than nature.)

I�m not sure what your motive is, but no, not every article published in a scientific journal reflects the opinion of that journal. (read the disclaimers)

And even if they were right, what's YOUR point in posting it here? And does it invite dialogue to label (libel) everyone who responds Pathetically Politically correct? I assume you wanted dialogue, or you could just talk to yourself.


Pathetically politically correctly yours,

Justin

[distiller]

walt,

The fact that the two articles immediately following the article simply and utterly disprove your idea that the journal whole heartedly supports the article. I love your little scenario where the liberal PC army mobilizes to try and stop the article being published and then when it fails goes on a rampage in rebuttals. Where do you get the nerve to add a cheap soap opera plot to what is basically someone making controversial claims in a professional journal only to have their "evidence" used against them. You might as well have added in some amnesia and a long lost twin brother for good measure to cover up the fact that the journal used the article as a catalyst for debate.

It seems clear that you sympathize with the author and for some reason are unable to admit 1) that you misrepresented the nature of this issue of the journal several times and 2) that simply because an article is published does not mean it is a view supported by the publication or its professional readers, especially when a rather large piece of the issue is devoted to debunking it.

If you want to say that you think one race is better than another than just come out and say so. Don't be a coward and hide behind highly disputed and discredited research. The fact that you started this thread with an article rather than your own assertion proves that you are fully aware of the cold reception idea like this would receive here, so rather than say they are your ideas you go on how it is in a journal so it must be true while in fact the journal devotes considerable space to articles arguing against the idea. In the future please do not misrepresent the contents of your sources and have the courage to speak your mind rather than hide behind someone else's writings.

[AsiaTraveller]

The politically correct (according to racists) Rushton and Jensen have both been peddling this viewpoint to white supremacists for decades now. Their P.C. "research" only helps to buttress the P.C. views of bigots and eugenicists.

I wouldn't be surprised if the latest "findings" by the ultra-P.C. Rushton and Jensen were funded (as usual) by the Pioneer Fund, which has long been a source of limitless dollars for racialist pseudo-science.

*******

There are no public-policy implicatons: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005)
by Robert J. Sternberg
p.295-301 J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (see record 2005-03637-001) purport to show public-policy implications arising from their analysis of alleged genetic bases for group mean differences in IQ. This article argues that none of these implications in fact follow from any of the data they present. The risk in work such as this is that public-policy implications may come to be ideologically driven rather than data driven, and to drive the research rather than be driven by the data.

[AsiaTraveller]

Duh. Where have I been?

It just occurred to me that waltertoo must be the erstwhile jeddahteacher.

True???

[distiller]

I was trying to remember that last guy who did the "scientific racism" thing but couldn't remember his name. Now you've gone and done it, AT. I think you've hit the bull�s-eye! For anyone who needs reminding check out http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/job/viewtopic.php?p=144882&highlight=#144882