Well, I am sure I will be called a white supremist again, but here goes:

From Thomas Sowell's Race and IQ

Years ago, while doing research on education and IQ, I happened to be in the principal's office at a black school in Cincinnati, as he was preparing to open a large brown envelope containing the results of IQ tests that his students had taken. Before he opened the envelope, I offered to bet him that a large majority of the students with IQs over 110 would be girls.

He was too smart to take the bet. Studies had shown that females predominated among high-IQ blacks. One study of blacks whose IQs were 140 and up found that there were more than five times as many females as males at these levels.

This is hard to explain by either heredity or environment, as those terms are usually defined, since black males and black females have the same ancestors and grow up in the same homes. Meanwhile, white males and white females have the same average IQs, with slightly more males at both the highest and lowest IQs.

This is just one of many unsolved mysteries that is likely to remain unsolved, because doing research on race and IQ has become taboo in many places. My own research was financed in part by a grant from a foundation that told me to remove any mention of IQ research from the activities listed in my project's application. (end of quotes)

The questions:

Shouldn't Sowell's claim that females predominate among high-IQ blacks be further studied?

If this claim proves to be true, how should it effect domestic policies?

How does this effect the hereditary vs. environmental arguments concerning the black/white IQ gap?

Do the cries of racism, at the mere mention of the black/white IQ gap, prevent studies that could lead to policies that would eliminate this gap?

The complete article can be found here.

This is pretty much the same methodology and stuff the "bell curve" went to before- no real change, in fact, he seems to base his whole paper on it.

This entire theory has been completely torn apart, both in psych profiles and in stat analysis as well, as seen here:

http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html

IQ testing is very subjective anyway, and in any psych testing it is used as a guideline, never an absolute, to point to other testing. IQ testing on a succesful stock broker in New York may score him rather high, while a succesful drug dealer in a inner city may score rather low, when, in fact, in simple inate intelligence, the drug dealer may be quite a bit "smarter" than the stock broker.

Hugo- IQ testing on whites and non-whites almost always have been used by white supremists for this reason- because the variables are so great in IQ testing, that you get the right "sampling" and you get the result you were looking for- whites are smarter than blacks.

No psych profiler will ever buy into that crap, and you should probably not either- you seem to be an intelligent person- and this is a scam that does not highlite that feature in your personality!

" Skeptic: Let's turn to the heritability of IQ. Let's just look at that, as you described it, narrow measure we call IQ score, within the white population. Herrnstein and Murray repeat the same numbers that we find in reviews of the literature by Erlenmeyer-Kimling and Jarvik, Bouchard and others. Do you have any disagreement with or criticism of their estimate of .40 to .80 as the heritability of IQ score within the white population?

Sternberg: I think that there is definitely some heritability of intelligence in the White population. Almost every psychologist believes there is some heritability of IQ and I agree. But the public may not understand just what that means. If you accept the use of the heritability statistic, about .5 is probably right.

Skeptic: Can you explain wherein the general public's conception or the media's description of what is meant by heritability is wrong?

Sternberg: The commonplace understanding of heritability often doesn't realize that heritability is calculated within a range of environments, at a given time, for a given population. So heritability is not the same in every population. In fact there is wide variation in populations over time and space. It is not a fixed statistic. The value you obtain (for heritability) depends on the population, where it is, and when it is. But the major misunderstanding relates to the role of the environment and to the role of teachability. With respect to teachability, even if heritability is fairly high, it does not mean that we cannot modify intelligence.

Skeptic: What exactly do you mean by that?

Sternberg: What I mean is that there is absolutely no relation between how heritable something is and the existence of a difference in group means. The most common example is height. Height has a heritability of greater than .9, but heights have increased quite dramatically in some countries like Japan and have also increased in our own country over the course of several generations. So despite the much higher heritability of height than anyone believes of intelligence, we see that height can increase. To take a more extreme example: there is a disease known as Phenylketonuria (PKU), which is 100% heritable and yet through an environmental intervention, namely withholding Phenylalanine from the diets of infants from birth, you can either reduce or eliminate the mental retardation that normally results. In other words, even when heritability is 1.00, environmental interventions still matter. There are different ways to look at intelligence. One is to do heritability statistics, which I've never found to be that helpful. Another way is to look at studies on intervention. For example, Dennis did a large study in Iran where he found that kids that were placed in Iranian orphanages, almost without exception, were mentally retarded, whereas the children who were quickly adopted before the age of two scored at normal levels on intelligence tests, roughly a 50-point difference in obtained IQ. "

http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html

I think the reason this subject is taboo is because too many have tried to argue that one race is genetically inferior to another.

When it is clearly pointed out at the beginning of the thread that you do not believe this and you are looking with an open mind to determine what factors in our society make members of one group perform poorly on a given test, then you are less likely to have readers of your thread assume that you are trying to argue racial inferiority.

When you say that IQ test scores are scientific measures of intelligence and that those that score lower on IQ tests are by definition more stupid than those who score higher, you also are pressing buttons.

I have learned, that although you like pressing buttons, Hugo, you see socio-economic reasons for this discrepancy, not genetic ones. If you want to argue that IQ scores accurately reflect the tremendous disparity in educational opportunity that exists between the rich and poor in this country than I am in agreement. More studies that show that hard work in learning reflects higher IQ scores will be a benefit for us all in that they would reconfirm that stronger commitment to education results in a higher IQ score which then translates into higher earnings.

But, Hugo, if you want to be persuasive I strongly suggest that you use the term educated in place of intelligence. Many people have different definitions of intelligence and they all aren't pegged directly to IQ score.

Here is some evidence of Hugo's position on IQ that is does not support a doctrine of racial superiority.

from Hugo

How does this effect the hereditary vs. environmental arguments concerning the black/white IQ gap?

Attacking this debate entirely from a logical standpoint and avoiding fumbling around inconsistent and rather pointless statistics, doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous to assume that because Black Woman score higher on IQ tests then Black Men, even if it is a 100% truth, that this goes anywhere towards proving either the hereditary or the environmental arguments?

Yes, even if White Men and Woman score the same, and Black Men and Woman do not, this does not mean or imply that Black Men and Women do not experience completely and utterly different growing experiences then White Men and Women.

Additionally, I would hypothesis based on most of the studies that I've seen that there is a "ceiling" to these averages, that perhaps white men and women are both hovering at? Perhaps it is impossible for the average to get any higher with our current educational infrastructure?

Do the cries of racism, at the mere mention of the black/white IQ gap, prevent studies that could lead to policies that would eliminate this gap?

It seems to me, that there is nothing to investigate here. IQ is a measure which is inherintly biased towards Western culture, because it was created from western thought which bases it in a particular style of thought which is not inherint to other cultures.

Why would studying this gap be anymore neccessary than exploring why Asian Americans score consistently higher on IQ tests than whites? Wouldn't it be enitrely more productive to study socio-economic effects on IQ? I would imagine this would be a much more productive way of proving environment effects IQ and eliminating percieved "race gaps," which anyone who is not mired in racist agenda will tell you is really a socio-economic gap. (Not calling you a racist Hugo! )

It would seem to indicate that there is something different about the educational experience (and perhaps nurturing) of black females compared to males. There are plenty of statistics which indicate that environment has a tremendous influence on IQ score. These children are raised in the same environments, and go to the same schools, so what is the difference? I think it's pretty relevant to finding the solution. Certainly it's noteworthy. Maybe the male students place their emphasis on a future career in sports and music, rather than accounting? All boys do this, of course. I don't know of any boy with any poetry in his soul (or I'd want to spend more than five minutes around) who says they want to be a CPA. I would bet, though, that there's a tremendous disparity between the young minority boys who aspire to be doctors and lawyers, and non-minority boys. I think growing up in a tough neighborhood places an emphasis on being 'tough', especially if you're a boy. Spend your free time doing homework? Why?

This was interesting: raising the bar

How can there be an inherent western bias if Asians score highest? There is definitely a bias, but it leans towards environment. I couldn't find the link, but
I've read studies which indicated some children's IQs have increased up to 30 points with a change in their school environment alone (with parental participation at home, of course). IQ tests and scores are not a good indication of overall intelligence, but they are a good indication of the type of 'intelligence' which leads to material success.

Why do you assume that this is entirely an argument about eugenics to begin with? Maybe Hugo agrees that this has something to do with socio-economic influences, too. Maybe an investigation for the reason behind the white/asian gap would also be relevant to finding answers here. Asians do tend towards two parent families. Perhaps that's one part of the equation also.

Mrs. P is entirely right- IQ scores, and educational IQ as we test it, is super dependent on enviroment (not neccesarily strictly culture, as she pointed out with the Asians) - and most of it has to do with the ownership that some parents take on the childs education.

Go back and read the "heritibility" area of IQ- and there is not a scientist that doesn't believe enviroment is more important to IQ than heritibility, because learning is an eviroment with thousands of variables!

Also- one thing Hugo- all your studies on this, especially Sowell and the Bell Curve have one fatal flaw when presented as "science"- NO PEER REVIEW- one of the most important aspects of any science- allow your peers to dissect and re-create your methodology.

Both those were aimed at the media, not at actually being scientific, so that is why even most scientists, whom can almost never agree on anything, realize it as a magazine article, NOT science!

Actually I agree that the the studies overwhelmingly show that the racial gap in IQ is environmentally caused. I would say that a female/male divergence in black IQs would be further evidence of this. The Bell Curves conclusions were wrong. They set out to prove heritability, to support a conservative agenda, and found it. The fact there is a racial gap in IQs with asians scoring highest, whites next and blacks scoring 10-15 points behind whites has been confirmed by study after study. Sowell did his own studies on IQ, that he referred to in his article. There were a lot of critics on The Bell Curve. Simply type in Bell Curve Reviews in your search function. What you overwhelmingly find is consensus that the black/white IQ gap exists just that the Bell Curve authors are wrong when they attribute it to genetics. I have never argued for inheritability. You sure would not know that from the knee-jerk response of some posters everytime I mention the IQ gap. Face it, when we seek to reduce the influence of SAT scores on college admissions we are admitting that there is a gap between the races. SAT scores and IQ scores strongly correlate.

What are the nearly universally recognized environmental factors that lead to this gap? 1) age of mother at childbirth 2) prenatal care 3) number of children in family 4) early education 5) existence of a second parent in the home.

Recognizing these environmental factors could lead to a mixture of conservative and liberal policies to combat the problem. Reducing children born out of wedlock, expanding Head-Start type programs, increased access to healthcare for, impoverished, pregnant women.

Of course we now have the possibility of female/male IQ gap among black Americans. I do believe that this issue does need study. I strongly suspect that the absence of a father in the home may contribute greatly to this possible gap. That male children are harmed greater than female children by a father's absence. Right now that is pretty much purely theory. Without further studies we do not know. I would argue the existence of a male/female IQ gap, in blacks,would be further evidence of environmental factors having the major role in the IQ gap. I mean a sister and brother could hardly have genetically based IQ differences. The existence of a female/male gap would seem to indicate to me something exists in the environment that harms black males greater than black females.

Al Gore lost the Presidency due to this gap, I would think liberals would be particularly interested in closing it.



Well since Sowell is one of the strongest critics of "The Bell Curve" I would agree a bit of this paper is based on his critique of it. You should read a bit more of Sowell, and others, the gap exists, and the scientific consensus is environmental factors are the cause.

Eeyore, most of the existing studies measure the IQ gap. I think we all know what the I stands for. There may be some cultural bias, studies are mixed on this, but either way IQ tests are a strong predictor of future success. I agree that politicians might have to address the SAT score gap, or some other similar subterfuge, in order to avoid the knee-jerk responses the mere mention of an IQ gap causes.

Ho-hum. Another year, another debate about black I.Q.

If this seems familiar that because it should. It's a favorite subject on this board.

You can read all about here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...topic=2443&st=0

and here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...T&f=5&t=2416&s=

and here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=2694

As you can see, invoking the supreme privilege of whites to define other races in as subordinate and secondary has a long history on America's Debate.

I have only two things to add to this debate. One is from Debra Dickerson, author of the new book, The End of Blackness:

"Blacks must monitor white people so as to safeguard their piece of the pie, but they otherwise should ignore them politically. Black self-worth simply cannot hinge on other people's behavior: So what if people eyeball them suspiciously? So what if rent-a-cops follow them around? So what if a random white woman clutches her purse when they pass? Is it not obvious that much of this behavior persists merely because it feeds whites' need to be central to everything? All blacks can control is their behavior, not other people's narcissistic and inglorious needs. If you know who you are, why does it matter so much that a powerless stranger has you all wrong?"
---- Debra Dickerson/The End of Blackness

Hugo invokes the name of Thomas Sowell frequently in his posts about the intellectually inferiority of blacks. Like many true believers, Hugo has found an agreeing voice to buttress his own convictions and now proselytizes for the Church of Sowell. As if the finding of one person's viewpoint that accommodates your only constitutes an inalterable truth.

You should really read Dickerson's book Hugo. Not only would it expand upon your vast knowledge of blackness, but in her acknowledgements she gives a shout out to Sowell.

My second comment on this matter was made on July 4, 2003, but remains the same now as it was then:

The name of Thomas Sowell, the black economist and prominent conservative, has been invoked several times as if his willingness to lend his name to theories of black inferiority confirms its efficacy. Sowell's authenticity resides almost exclusively with white conservatives. For the vast majority of black people he represents neither authority or leadership. He is a race pimp of a different pedigree and his congregation are white conservatives who glom onto Sowell's loathing of contemporary black leadership to mask their own racially-tinged distaste for non-conservative blacks.

Conservatives fawn over Sowell because he is more than happy to play the modern day Booker T. Washington. He says nothing to discomfort white people and is well compensated for his token Negro status. Challenge a white conservative on his racial views and they parade a slew of happy house slaves like Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Larry Elder and Armstrong Williams to say, "We's is happy darkies, Boss."

Thomas Sowell is a weapon used against African Americans. He has no following, leads no movement and provides no direction to bring the races one minute closer to real racial reconciliation. Sowell and his ilk are apologists which is why no one but white conservatives take him seriously.

Federal Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. wrote Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas a letter in 1991 reminding Thomas of the awesome responsibility that had been thrust upon him and asked Thomas, "During the last ten years, you have often described yourself as a black conservative. I must confess that, other than their own self-advancement, I am at a loss to understand what it is the black conservative are so anxious to conserve."

Invoke Sowell's name all you want. His opinion matters as much to me as would that of David Duke.

If members of America's Debate's "cognitive elite" wish to wallow in the sick perverse need to prove themselves genetically superior you can include me out. I have neither the need nor the interest in justifying my existence to anyone on this board. Debating the IQ of races is a cold and dark parlor game of bored intellectuals.

Yep, point out the IQ gap and if you are white, you are a racist, if black, "a happy house slave". Does not matter that this gap is causing harm to the black community; this subject is taboo. Sadly, you cannot cure a problem until you recognize it's existence. Clearly no politician will get near this subject. The branding of conservative blacks as "happy house slaves" is little different than the term "nigger or Jew lovers" for advocates of civil rights in the "60's. Blacks have a right to be conservative too, without disparaging labels and ulterior motives assigned to them.



I have yet to see one member of AD argue blacks are genetically inferior. This is a strawman brought out to censor debate. The inference is that anyone who even brings up the subject of the IQ gap is morally bankrupt.


I see no one arguing blacks are genetically inferior, so maybe we should concentrate on the questions I originally asked.

When you look at IQ and it's relationship to economic success and crime you cannot ignore the issue simply because the fact of the IQ gap pushes some people's buttons.

Of course that "happy house slave" says it better than I do (sometimes I suspect he might be a bit smarter than I am). From Sowell's Race and IQ: Part III

That history and its painful consequences are undeniable. But, in a world where whole nations have in effect raised their IQs by 20 points in one generation, it is time for black "leaders" and white "friends" to stop trying to discredit the tests and get on with the job of improving the skills that the tests measure.

A number of black schools, even in rundown ghettos, have already reached or exceeded national norms on tests, so there is no question that it can be done. The question is whether it will in fact be done, on a large enough scale to change the abysmal educational results in too many predominantly black schools.

So long as demagogues are concentrating on demonizing anyone who points out the problem, do not expect the kind of general improvement that is needed. (end of quotes)

To label Sowell a proponent of genetic inferiority is totally absurd. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the fact Sowell does recognize the IQ gap.

Hugo- Night timer is right- the only poeple that buy into all that is the white conservative movement- there is no science based organization that takes Sowell seriously.

IF you want to up the IQ of your nation- you start by elevating those that do not have the resources that much of our middle class has- and that means all poor poeple basically- not just blacks.

You take the whole context of inferiority of blacks out of this argument- and then it moves right into an education and developement debate- and completely colorblind, but not resource blind.

In our own buzzwords at work when we talk politics- we call it "David Dukisms"- that means taking a kernal of info and making it fit the republican/conservative agenda, whether it be "every child left behind" or affirmative action.

Wrong again. The scientific consensus is that, as Sowell argues, that the IQ gap is due to environmental factors, not hereditary factors as "The Bell Curve" held. In fact Sowell ripped apart "The Bell Curve" in a review for the American Spectator. What I see on this board is people with a total ignorance of Sowell's views on the IQ gap.

Excerpts from Sowell's review of "The Bell Curve" can be found here.

It is a devastating critique of "The Bell Curve". No sane person can read it and conclude that Sowell and Murray agree on anything past the existence of the IQ gap.

Apparently it is my day to be contrary and offended often.

Nighttimer, I think there have been a string of posts on this thread today that are pointing out that this gap is NOT attributable to racial inferiority.

Are you trying to argue that the gap on IQ tests does not exist? Hugo has pointed out here and before on America's debate that the gap changes over time and by education level.

His question that you seem to be proving his point for is this:



Shouting down a theory because it seems to be politically incorrect is an increasing failing of many liberal voices. These things should be explored and understood in greater detail. I think this IQ gap, if it does exist, and if it does change in relation to education level, should be connected strongly to the application of affirmative action programs.

You appear to me to be shouting down the argument with name calling. Since I am interested in the theory and the implications that might mean for changing IQ scores (and Hugo just because the test has the word intelligence in its name does not mean that it is a true measure of intelligence I have driven by some slums with the name royal estates at the entrance) and an ability to measure progress in affirmative action programs, since I am interested in thinking about this,

I now fall into your category of the . That is not debating someone or something, that is a close-minded attempt to intimidate people from pursuing an idea in fear of being branded a bigot or a racist.

So you're just misunderstood, is that it Hugo? You're shouldering "the white man's burden" and trying to lift these poor Negroes out of their unfortunate lot in life? Unfortunately, the Politically Correct Police, bleeding heart liberals and race-enforcing blacks are aligned against you.

If it weren't for your own well-established support of eugenics and web sites that advocate this kind of junk science, if it weren't for your own prior history of making inflammatory remarks on matters of race on this board, and if it weren't for the my strong belief that the edification, enlightenment and elevation of black people isn't one of your deeply held convictions, I might believe you Hugo.

Yet remarks such as these from the now closed "AIDS/HIV: Are We Doing Enough? thread cause me to doubt:

I quote:

It sounds to me like the only solution for this problem is a vaccine. The money would be better spent on research toward that goal than trying to change a society of baby-rapers

If all the do-gooders of the world would throw in a $100 at least it would only be their money going down the drain. This makes our war on drugs look sensible by comparison. A difference between being a realist and a racist. Certainly most of Africa was better off under European rule.

Educating a bunch of borderline retards is not cheap. Particularly when they are already ingrained to behave in a certain way.

It may be in our national interest to exploit Africa and still not in out interest to aid Africa. We do run trade deficits with Africa though.

We dont have this money. We are the world's biggest debtor nation. It does not advance our interest to attempt to educate people, who by western standards average being borderline retards, and allieve their suffering.

Which fits nicely into the "You Never Had It So Good" mindset of Uncle Tom Sowell:

John Hawkins: Do you believe reparations should be paid for slavery?

Thomas Sowell: The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America. Put differently, the terrible fate of their ancestors benefitted them.

and more from Hugo's favorite black man:

Europeans came in their ships, bought slaves from the Africans, and then left the scene quickly before they fell sick from African diseases. Even so, many white crewmen on the ships bringing slaves from Africa to the Western Hemisphere died on the way. The notion that it was white people who introduced slavery to Africa, or who captured most of the slaves themselves, may fit the mindset of those who thought that "Roots" was history, but this myth will not stand up to facts, logic or economics.

Those who try to claim that the shattered families in today's ghettoes are "a legacy of slavery" ignore the fact that, a hundred years ago, a slightly higher percentage of blacks than of whites were married and most black children were raised in two-parent families, even during the era of slavery.

Need I go on as to why Thomas Sowell may be an expert source to Hugo, but he's nothing more than a apologist for slavery, racism and white supremacy to me?

Another attempt to portray myself as a racist, while ignoring the questions to debate. It is quite sad. I want to see everyone succeed, nighttimer, I just don't think big government is the answer.

I think nighttimer has clearly demonstrated why politicians will not tackle this issue and why another generation of blacks will grow up handicapped by their inability to master the skills IQ tests measure. Affirmative action, for adults, is a poor substitute for getting to the root of the problem. As long as black IQs lag behind blacks will suffer.



And is not Sowell's quote true? I guess the fact that slavery did less harm to the black family than the welfare state is another ugly fact.

NT, maybe if this thread was about whether or not Hugo is a racist the previous post might be on topic.

However, I think the question as to whether or not this can be a point of debate without having it shouted down for being racist is a fair one. Unfortunately, the answer is becoming apparent and unfortunate.

There are a lot of people, white, black, and blue, that are racist. That does not by definition invalidate all of their points, even on the issue of race.

Let's all try to stay on topic and take the other stuff into an appropriate thread, if there is one.

Since the topic is not if I am a racist, or if Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom, let me repeat the questions. I guess I will have to be more careful about use of rhetorical flourish. All nighttimer has done is address mine and Sowell's motivation, not our arguments.







Well, I think nighttimer's responses to this debate certainly indicate the dangers a politician would face if they addressed this issue. Sadly, I do not believe nighttimer's position would be a lonely one. This is one of the most critical issues of our day, that children are growing up not ready to handle the skills that will allow them to be successful in the job market and it cannot be rationally addressed. And you thought political discussion on Social Security was difficult?

*edited to fix quotes

This concept about racism that "everybody does it" intrigues me. To what degree is black racism against whites as systematic, perpetuated, institutionalized and legally codified as practiced by whites against blacks in Rhodesia, South Africa and the United States?

Perhaps Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe's persecution of whites? Maybe so, but I don't think there's a Birth of A Nation in the history of Zimbabwe cinema.

Unfortunately, Eeyore, there is no appropriate place to debate racism without people becoming very emotional, heated and outraged by some of the ideas presented. Perhaps it is possible to debate the intelligence of blacks without resorting to stereotyping, sweeping generalizations and outright scurrilous racism. However, this debate has been swallowed whole by all of those pitfalls.

Anyone who is so delusional as to suggest black people were harmed more by welfare than slavery is just begging not to be taken seriously.

I'll respond accordingly. Enjoy the rest of your "debate."

Well, the previous comment just confirmed my point that the mere debate of the IQ gap will lead to charges of racism. I don't think he was here to debate the questions at hand.

We have a problem, by the time a black child turns 18, on average, his SAT scores will be lower than his white peer. Affirmative action, a politically unstable government action, will never address more than a small minority of individuals who, we all seem to agree due to the environment, have not mastered the needed skills to achieve economic success. We can continue to ignore the problem. We do so at our own peril. The price of ignorance is high.

I'm having a hard time seeing for some reason. Nevermind, I put my hood on backwards again. For the sake of the rest of this debate let us assume that I am the treasurer of the KKK and I write big checks to Thomas Sowell. Given that...what is wrong with our arguments? Heck, Hitler liked dogs.

Intelligence and religion

Intelligence drops with increasing feelings of the importance of religion

I am concerned about the intelligence gap between the secular (higher IQs) and religious (lower IQs). The data is not in doubt - and may be hereditable, but not genetic.

I'm waiting to hear the interesting ways those who jump on hugo's bandwagon will oppose what I have presented here.

As to this whole issue...



The African magazine

Ned Block wrote in the Boston Review:


and later:


and:


and finally:


I am hoping these articles can help. I realize the latter one goes a bit deeply into technical jargon, but it is quite an interesting piece.

Well, we have always known that poeple that are into religion are stupid LOL


I think the real way to test this is to do a color blind study in a somewhat homogenous society and to a control group- for instance, go to Russia, where you have several different white races ( to me, all white poeple look alike, but to my russian wife, she can tell what part of what white race you are- like estonian, polish, bulgarian, serbian, croation etc- my russian relatives where trying to point out the differences for me and I could never tell LOL) and see if thier IQ remains constant, and conduct the same analysis.

But once again, IQ testing is extremely inaccurate and unscientific, and only an indicator for other testing and behavior programs, and was NEVER meant to be solely a way to test intelligence. Because IQ doesn't measure things like ambition or drive, it certainly has nothing to do with success.

NTs basic analogy that this is a conservative bandwagon issue still holds true, simply because just the IQ testing is an inaccurate way to get to his conclusions, he doesn't put them up for peer review, and only releases them for media purposes.

If he were releasing these for peer review and basic scientific standards, we would have an actual debate about the "IQ gap".

Ah, boy. Quark, no one is arguing that the IQ gap is due to genetics. Save your religion arguments for another debate.

Let me quote a liberal , white woman since black conservatives are so onerous. From this link.

But Brooks-Gunn cautions that while there is evidence that the test score gap is declining over time, "We shouldn’t expect it all to happen in one generation. And that’s really important for those of us who would like things to happen fast."

Inroads into the gap can be made in a profound way, according to Brooks-Gunn, by looking at the literary environment in the home and focusing on reading activities in the home. Early childhood programs and family literacy programs have the potential, Brooks-Gunn says of enhancing school readiness of poor children.

"Since disproportionately more black parents are poor than white parents, and since mothers of families who are poor are less likely to engage in literacy environments, these programs can make a difference …And the point is that we have to work with parents--- not just in pre-school--- but also during elementary school."

Brooks-Gunn is hopeful that the gap will be eliminated and recommends that the "focus should be on poverty." She believes that multifaceted national and local programs that end the disparities in income and the quality of education for the poor and near poor, are the answers.

"To me the issue comes back to poverty and everything that goes with it, which includes school quality, low literacy, violent neighborhoods, less access to health and child care."

For Brooks-Gunn, her research for The Black white Test Score Gap speaks to education, at a variety of levels. "If we want to do something about the test score gap we have to do something about education. It means focusing on the early childhood years and connections between pre-school and elementary school, to help parents and their families help their kids. It also means looking at education across the lifespan, and even across generations, to understand what happens and why its hard for poor kids to overcome, if you will, obstacles." (end of quotes)

Thank God...or the great nothing, so I will seem more intelligent...that studies are being done on this issue. Despite those who would jump on nighttimer's and Quark's bandwagon. Now I have documented the gap and used both a black, conservative male and a white, liberal, woman. These two individuals and the authors of "The Bell Curve" and just about everyone else who has studied the issue recognize the gap. The question is what do we do about it. Ms. Brooks-Gunn (hyphenated name has to be a liberal) has a few suggestions here. The gap is not insurmountable.



What total hogwash. Something does not have to measure every element of success in order to determine a probability of success. IQ scores have shown a strong positive correlation with economic success.

A bit of info concerning Brook-Gunnn's and her co-author's conclusions on the reasons for the gap:

Years of parents' education Do black and white parents have the same number of years of education? 0.2
Mother's family background Do the parents of black and white mothers have equal levels of education and occupational status? 3.3
Quality of mother's schooling Did white and black mothers go to schools of equal quality? For instance, were their schools similar in terms of the number of economically disadvantaged students, racial integration, teacher quality, student-teacher ratio, and teacher turnover? Were their schools equally safe?
1.24
Educational outcomes Do black and white parents know the same amount when they leave school (even if they have similar schooling)? For instance, do they show similar scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test?
2.15
Family income Do black and white parents have equal income and wealth (controlling for things such as level of education)? 1.05
(The authors note that this effect is larger for other data sets using different standardized tests.)

Parent attitudes and values Do black and white parents have the same educational expectations for their children? Do they show the same amount of self-efficacy and self-esteem?
0.42
Grandparents' influence Did black and white children's maternal grandparents live in the same region? Did they receive the same amount of schooling? Did they have the same occupational status? Did they have the same reading material in the home? Did they have the same number of children? 4.36
(This is not a direct influence. The authors say that grandparent influences affect children, for the most part, through the mother's parenting practices)

Parenting practices Do black and white parents provide the same quality home environment for their children? Do they take them on learning experiences outside the home? Do they participate in literary experiences with their child? Do they have cognitively stimulating experiences in the home? Do they use the same punishment methods? Are they equally warm with their children? Is the physical environment of the home equally clean and safe?
>3.5

It is important to note that the numbers in the right-hand column of Table 1 do not "add up" in a straightforward manner. That is, when all of the influences are taken into account in the authors' statistical models, the "importance" of some characteristics drops. This is because Table 1 does not give the reader a sense of how the different family characteristics interact with each other. What Table 1 provides is a perspective on the relative importance of different family characteristics. (end of quotes)

I am not saying this is a definitive study. Thankfully, despite the environment we live in where the mere mention of the IQ gap leads to cries of racism, studies are being done. It seems to me this study infers parenting practices have a great deal of effect on children's IQ's, maybe addressing this would be a good start. Much better than trying to deny the racial gap or argue that IQ scores have no relationship to economic success.

The data I just used can be found at this site.

The study was on five to six year olds, elementary, and certainly not secondary, education could hardly have been a major factor.

Wow, hugo. You read my source articles really fast! In 14 minutes you read it and composed a reply! Astounding!

You have misunderstood my position here. There is an IQ gap, and it is mainly a socio-economic one. People from better-off, more secular parents, will have a higher IQ. I am not going to pretend it doesn't exist. I believe we can best address this problem by addressing poverty - and I have seen nothing to recommend supply-side economics as any sort of solution.

You have also misunderstood the reference material, though you must have read it closely: in your debate question (How does this effect the hereditary vs. environmental arguments concerning the black/white IQ gap?) you talk about heredity vs. environment - the article I cite explains clearly that hereditability is not the same thing as "genetic" - and that was the point of its inclusion here.

Also, when I mentioned the "hugo bandwagon," I was not trying to say anything about your views - only that, ironic or not, those who fall into a general category of discussion are less likely to see the issue objectively - and while I could easily picture several of our conservative members coming in to concur with your position - and perhaps even take it into areas you yourself would not care to go, many of them would at the same time try to argue against my inclusion of the data concerning the correlation of secularism and intelligence. That's all. Perhaps 14 minutes is not a long enough time for someone of your intelligence to read a thread by someone of my intelligence.

I will give you the possibility that someone might actually argue that the gap is due to genetics. My apoligies. I guess I was trying to get to the issues that I find debateable. Your post certainly did apply to what is, IMO, the least debateable of my questions. Obviously, the authors of "The Bell Curve" would disagree with both of us.

I don't think either supply-side economics or our current social welfare programs are addressing the problem. I do agree with Brooks-Gunn that much of the problem is at home and that is where we need to look to make changes.

Now maybe people we can start debating the issues I raised?

Let me add I was already quite familiar with the Block article.

I think part of the problem I have Hugo is how important these guys make IQ tests- where a single individual can have a change in IQ of 10 points from one week to the next-

Now, if you said "education gap"- then you really have something there, ALL races of male enrollments to secondary education is down while female education is up-

Using IQ tests to even "identify" a problem is not science, simply because IQ tests are so unreliable. They are good for placement into gifted or remedial training for kids, as part of batteries of tests in neuro testing, but as far as social stats, they are just about worthless.

Once again, none of your authors have submitted thier findings to peer review, meaning they NEVER WERE scientific papers, but rather op-ed opinion pieces.

There have many studies done confirming the IQ gap, it is a a fact. The liberal attempt to argue that IQ does not matter simply dooms another generation of children. Anybody who has ever managed a group of workers knows IQ does matter. It is absurd to argue otherwise. To argue studies that have not been subjected to peer review are unscientific is also absurd. This is the first topic on America's Debate where I have seen anyone insisting that studies that have not had peer review are invalid. Furthermore, how do you know some of these studies have not been subjected to peer review? You can read hundreds of reviews, by respected scientists and others on "The Bell Curve" 90+% disagree with their conclusions that the gap is hereditary, 90+% also agree an IQ gap does exist. You are correct that IQ scores of an individual can vary. You are wrong in assuming this means large sample sizes of tests cannot accurately point out IQ differences among different groups. The very fact that this an almost "taboo" subject makes definitive research difficult.

IQ scores don't matter...simply another attempt to avoid facing the current dilemma. Prisons are filled with individuals with subnormal IQ's, Don't find many physicians, or scientists, lawyers, etc with 80 IQ's. Iq's matter, SAT scores matter. The current dilemma...children, per capita more black than white, are growing up without mastering basic skills. The problem should not be ignored just because the ugly fact that IQ scores do matter and that a racial gap exists makes some people uncomfortable.

I don't know if we have a problem with definitions here or you just don't understand the reasoning for IQ testing in the first place-

First off- for your any of your studies to be scientific, they need peer review- where is the peer review? I have looked and looked at Sowell and others, and it is simply the same level as Rush or any other pundit posting thier opinions UNLESS the entire theory is published scientifically and then allowed reveiw.

Liberal or whatever, IQ testing as a means to determine intelligence and success in an entire population is bound to have some fatal flaws.

If you wish to talk education scores, and educational issues, with regards to race or what have you, you have some real meat there.

Here is an example of IQ testing we use at work- for FAS kids (fetal alcohol syndrome) - some have presented as high as 150 in IQ testing- but have profound learning disabilities and actual brain damage, so even though they present well, they stand about an 80% chance of dead or incarcerated before 30. We do the IQ testing to see one aspect of thier neurological funciton- which is what IQ testing is for.

"IQ gap" is not only bad science, but inaccurate as well- and won't identify the problem, as you keep wishing it will do.

Now- if you go to educational standards, you have some real traction here, because you can narrow down the variables alot, and do much better stats on it.

However, if there is a peer review and science paper or two you can link too, with the added summaries and rebuttals of an "IQ gap"- that I would like to see, but not a basically opinion piece.

The Brooks-Gunn study was not an opinion piece. The Sowell opinion piece referred to his studies. I am sure Rush would be greatly pleased to be mentioned in the same breath with Thomas Sowell. Now let me explain about the difference between an individual score and an average score of a large sample size. Pretend like 1 individual has an IQ of 100, another 120. Can I say with any degree of confidence that the 100 IQ individual will be less successful? No, I can't. There are many factors besides IQ in achieving success. Now give me 100,000 randomly chosen individuals with 120 IQ's and contrast them with 100,000 individuals with 100 IQ's. Can I now say with almost 100% certainty that the group with the 120 IQ's will be more succesful? Yes, I can. Over a group of this size the other factors for success will average out and the 20 point IQ difference will prevail.

As long as blacks lag behind whites in IQ, in the absence of a huge income redistribution program, they will be less successful.

The results of a WAshington U study from Washington U's website:

Compare the average intelligence test scores of blacks and whites during their senior years in high school and whites tend to outscore blacks by as many as 15 IQ points. But send those students to college and the IQ scores of black students who graduate increase more than four times as much as those of their white college classmates, effectively cutting the black-white IQ gap in half by graduation.

This is one of the key findings of Washington University research that holds important implications for the current debate over federal and state attempts to roll back affirmative action programs.

"Our study shows that differences in IQ test scores among blacks and whites may have little to do with genetics, and much to do with the relative quality of the educational opportunities afforded to blacks and whites," said Mark R. Rank, Ph.D., associate professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.

Other members of the research team are Fredric Q. Raines, Ph.D., associate professor of economics in Arts and Sciences; Mark A. Schnitzler, Ph.D., research instructor in the School of Medicine's Health Administration Program; and Joel Myerson, Ph.D., research professor of psychology in Arts and Sciences.

The journal Psychological Science has accepted for publication an article based on their research, tentatively scheduled to run in March 1998.
(end of quote)

THe gap is a fact. And guess what? It ain't hereditary and it is not fixed at the individual level, which means it can be, and has been with college students, reduced.

Now let me bring up another source, from this link.



As you see the average black man earned 67.5% of the average white man in 1993. If he scored between the thirtieth and forty-ninth percentiles his average wage was 84% of the average white man's, a substantial difference. If he had above average scores his income was nearly the same as his white peer (96%).

I suggest people read the whole article. Phillips and Jencks criticize both liberals and conservatives who are attempting to manipulate stats for political gain.

At least we are doing something right, from the same link:



Once more from the same link on why test scores matter:



I can't add anything to that.

hugo, I too would like to solve this problem - we simply must address the fact that IQ and other testing scores are lower among the poor and the religious. What you see (or what your sources see) as a white/black issue is to me an issue of economics. Therefor, I see this question as the most important one you posed:



To help this debate get onto a track where we can debate how to first, solve the economic disparity and the disparity of opportunity afforded to our poorest sectors, and second, how to get people to be more secular , perhaps you could give us your answer to this question.

It is clear that the poorest sector of our society has been losing ground slightly since 1980, in terms of real wages and wealth, while the top 5% has been increasing its proportion of wealth by double digit percentage points. How do you propose to solve this?

I'll tell you what bothers me about your prime sources, and probably what bothers others as well: why the focus on a racial disparity of IQ scores, when, if you look at the context, it seems clear that similar disparities exist between well-off whites and poor whites (for example)? That's what makes these projects seem racially motivated.

The reason it is based on race is because the wages of blacks and whites is often compared. More by liberals than conservatives. When someone states the average black male makes X% of whites the reasons behind that need to be studied. As Phillips and Jencks showed this income disparity is greatly reduced when you compare blacks and whites with similar aptitudes. I am sorry, but differences between blacks and whites are brought up all the time.From my previous example of wages, to acceptance for home loans, to college admissions. It seems to be only racism when it comes to discussing the IQ difference. I think the chief cause is because racists have misinterpreted the reasons for the IQ gap to push the idea of black inferiority. The more studies done on this issue the more these racists will be discredited.

While much of the differences are socioeconomic, I think some emphasis needs be placed on the socio half. It is my experience that my brown son felt more peer pressure, particularly in middle school, to ignore education than I did, or his white counterparts faced. The scorn some minority children face, the accusation of "acting white", for trying to pursue their education must be addressed. There are factors beyond poverty,IMO, facing minority students.

Certainly finding programs, or systems, that help improve a child's skills can benefit all, regardless of race.

I believe income is a much better barometer than wealth. I really don't want to get into macroeconomic arguments of how to increase wealth, this debate has been fairly exhausting already. I think regardless of whatever policies our government takes the poor will be with us and would prefer to address the poor at this point.

Let me start by requoting from a study I cited earlier:



The author's note the above is an indirect influence that primarily effects the mother's parenting practices



Here over 50% of the gap is basically attributed to parenting practices. Brooks-Gunn focuses on the early years, which I agree is the right idea. IQ's are not fixed, and other studies have shown even college age children can improve IQ's dramatically, but I would say almost certainly that the period from conception to age 5 is the most significant period. Now the problem, there seems to be little consensus on what to do now. So, heck, I will give my own opinions.

1) Prenatal care has to be convenient and affordable. I hate taxes, but investing a few bucks up front can save a lot later. I am not a total libertarian when it comes to children. I support 12 years of free education, and I can support spending a few more dollars before they reach school age, providing that these dollars are not able to be used for discretionary spending.

After that I don't really have the answers at this point, Head Start programs seem to have initial results that fadeaway as the child gets older. I think somehow there have to be more neighborhood type programs, more volunteers helping parents learn parenting skills. Whatever, we come up with,IMO, most of the influence on a child, in these critical years, comes from the parent and attempts to reduce the IQ gap must concentrate on parenting skills.

As they get older I would like to see the term "acting white" disappear from the english language.

Unlike some debates, I did not start this one because I thought I had all the answers. I started it because I know it is a subject that must be debated, even with the knowledge that the inevitable screams of racism would occur.

Quark, why are you throwing religion into this? Isn't this a difficult enough topic already.

I also think you are misreading Hugo's basic points made so far IN THIS THREAD.
I have yet to see him make any type of argument that blames those with lower IQs for their group condition.

There is an opportunity gap in this country, most of our programs for addressing it do use race or gender as a solution. I think a lot of people on this thread feel that it is socio-economic differences that play a high role in the opportunity gap that is out there.

I think there have been several posts on this thread that have been knee jerk reactions from the liberal side of the aisle that prove Hugo's point about some subjects being considered taboo. This is fodder for those who lament the tyranny of political correctness in our society.

This may in fact be a wonderful tool for trying to devise a strategy for improving the future of those children with a disadventageous upbringing. It also may give all parents some pointers on effective parenting if it is revealed that certain types of nurture or punishment seem to have an IQ impact.

Maybe similar studies will reveal more effective measuring tools. Who knows? But it seems that this is an area that merits study. I am not sure that AA had prvoided a leg up for impoverished balcks, nor am I certain that AFDC helped the poor elevate themselves from poverty.

This also could help provide a balanced way to find people with equal educational ability to be admitted to schools. Hey it may even show that Michigan's system of adding points to certain groups created a more equal admission pool than a system that accords every score an equal value.

It is worthy of debate and study without ascribing racist motives to people who bring up the point.

What we have had here so far is 1) people declaring I am a racist, despite the fact I have never claimed anything except environmental factors for the existence of the gap. 2) We have also had people claim that IQ does not matter, when everyone who lives in the real world knows it does. 3) We have also had a preemptive strike on anybody who might be religious and jump on "Hugo's bandwagon" and differ from Hugo by claiming the gap is due to heredity. 4) Finally we have the new standard, for AD, of "peer review" otherwise it ain't science. Good thing Copernicus did not have to wait for positive peer reviews.

1) I am not a racist, my son is half-Filipino. Having knowledge of his taste in women the odds are my grandchildren will be 3/4 brown. I realize that this issue is more over white/black than white/brown that is because the few studies that are being done concentrate on white vs. black. My personal experience is that browns too face circumstances white children do not face.

2) We all know IQ matters, it should not even be subject to debate.

3) I don't feel religious people are suffering economically or have the long history of being discriminated against that blacks do. Actually there is a bit of history against discriminations against some religions Jews and Catholics come to mind and, more lately, Muslims. Despite this I hear no one arguing for affirmative action programs for these groups. The focus is on blacks, because most people believe blacks have been harmed and are still paying a price for past and present discrimination. Reducing the black/white IQ gap will benefit blacks the most. Though, unlike divisive programs like affirmative action, the understanding of factors that lead to IQ differences will potentially benefit all.

4) And then we have had the proven existence of the IQ gap labeled as "bad science" despite the fact every single study on this issue, that I have found, recognizes this gap. It is as sure as the Earth is round that an IQ gap exists between white and black Americans. We can't convince the Flat Earthers that the Earth is round and no evidence will convince the liberal, with blinders on, that the IQ gap exists.

This discussion has proved that this is a taboo subject. Clearly any studies will have to be done without the widespread knowledge of the public. Hopefully these studies will still be available to guide policy makers. Possibly beneficial government action, or, in some cases, inaction will result. It would be much easier to address the greatest factor for white vs. black economic disparities if this subject was not taboo.

On a personal note. I was very lucky, I had two, well educated, parents. They could have been in a 50's sitcom. My father brought home the bacon, my mother took time off from her nursing career to raise myself and my brother through the critical years from birth to age 5, before going back to school and getting a master's in education. She read to us probably every night. I realize now my wife, I don't know if it is cultural or just her experience, was not read to as a child. I am fairly certain her mother was illiterate. When I had a son, I, somewhat ignorantly, copied what my father did, went to work and expected the wife to act as my mother had. Only years later did I realize she seldom read to my son, she learned her parenting from her illiterate mother. Now, don't get me wrong, my son is no dummy, but if I could go back again things would have been done differently. Maybe, our family would not have suffered as much anguish in my son's early teen years.Somehow it seems to me that little things can make a big difference. That things can be done to educate parents without some massive government program.

I remember reading some anti-"The Bell Curve" stuff years ago.

I think the pro-environmental factor camp was suggesting that lead based paint and other chemical environmental hazards (as well as limited access to prenatal care) in low income neighborhoods may have an effect on IQ. Also, separated twins studies can be complicated by the fact that the children share the same conditions in the mothers womb. This might suggest that rather than performing equally well due to the importance of genetics it could be a link forged by the health of the moms womb, which the twins do share even if they are raised separately.

From what I remember, the science that there are differences in IQ is pretty solid but the reasons for that difference are still hotly debated. I'm no scientist and not terribly interested in IQ science so i dont know much more about it. I agree its a sensitive issue, probably with very good reason given our history.

On a slightly related note, a very interesting book on the potential reasons for the differences in accomplishments between civilizations is "Guns, Germs and Steel". Great read and a reasonable case for why IQ differences are not needed at the global level to explain differing outcomes in civilizations.