BS: Racism of top scientist?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:39 PM

The Chitling Intelligence Test
[Adrian Dove]

Dove, A. The "Chitling" Test. From Lewis R. Aiken, Jr. (1971). Psychological and educational testings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

A "handkerchief head" is:
   
   (a) a cool cat, (b) a porter, (c) an Uncle Tom, (d) a hoddi, (e) a preacher.

Which word is most out of place here?

   (a) splib, (b) blood, (c) gray, (d) spook, (e) black.

A "gas head" is a person who has a:

   (a) fast-moving car, (b) stable of "lace," (c) "process," (d) habit of stealing cars, (e) long jail record for arson.

"Bo Diddley" is a:

   (a) game for children, (b) down-home cheap wine, (c) down-home singer, (d) new dance, (e) Moejoe call.

"Hully Gully" came from:

   (a) East Oakland, (b) Fillmore, (c) Watts, (d) Harlem, (e) Motor City.

Cheap chitlings (not the kind you purchase at a frozen food counter) will taste rubbery unless they are cooked long enough. How soon can you quit cooking them to eat and enjoy them?

   (a) 45 minutes, (b) 2 hours, (c) 24 hours, (d) 1 week (on a low flame), (e) 1 hour.

What are the "Dixie Hummingbirds?"

   (a) part of the KKK, (b) a swamp disease, (c) a modern gospel group, (d) a      Mississippi Negro paramilitary group, (e) Deacons.

If you throw the dice and 7 is showing on the top, what is facing down?

   (a) 7, (b) snake eyes, (c) boxcars, (d) little Joes, (e) 11.

"Jet" is:

   (a) an East Oakland motorcycle club, (b) one of the gangs in "West Side Story," (c) a news and gossip magazine, (d) a way of life for the very rich.

T-Bone Walker got famous for playing what?

   (a) trombone, (b) piano, (c) "T-flute," (d) guitar, (e) "hambone."

"Bird" or "Yardbird" was the "jacket" that jazz lovers from coast to coast hung on:

   (a) Lester Young, (b) Peggy Lee, (c) Benny Goodman, (d) Charlie Parker, (e) "Birdman of Alcatraz."

Hattie Mae Johnson is on the County. She has four children and her husband is now in jail for non-support, as he was unemployed and was not able to give her any money. Her welfare check is now $286 per month. Last night she went out with the highest player in town. If she got pregnant, then nine months from now how much more will her welfare check be?

   (a) $80, (b) $2, (c) $35, (d) $150, (e) $100.

"Money don't get everything it's true ."

   (a) but I don't have none and I'm so blue, (b) but what it don't get I can't use, (c) so make do with what you've got, (d) but I don't know that and neither do you.

How much does a short dog cost?

   (a) $0.15, (b) $2.00, (c) $0.35, (d) $0.05, (e) $0.86 plus tax.

Many people say that "Juneteenth" (June 19) should be made a legal holiday because this was the day when:

   (a) the slaves were freed in the USA, (b) the slaves were freed in Texas, (c) the slaves were freed in Jamaica, (d) the slaves were freed in California, (e) Martin Luther King was born, (f) Booker T. Washington died.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:41 PM

1, 2, 3, 4, _______ ?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:45 PM

PMB has made the sensible point that it's possible to be brilliant in one area, without that brilliance showing outside one's speciality.

Watson has been corrected by geneticists who point out that skin colour has no bearing on genetic relationships, and there is no such thing as 'race' in the sense he means.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:46 PM

>Then YOU give the data that shows IQ Tests to be accurate.

Go look it up. Your local university library has any number of
texts on psychological testing and instrumentation. When you've
read the literature and noted just how much effort goes into
measuring and removing bias, you can make up your mind.

I've taken the courses, and established my belief in the worth
of the standardized tests on that basis. But I don't feel the
need to 'recite' for someone whose mind is clearly already
made up, in the absence of anything but 'everyone knows' and
perhaps a few anecdotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:02 PM

"I've taken the courses, and established my belief in the worth
of the standardized tests on that basis. But I don't feel the
need to 'recite' for someone whose mind is clearly already
made up, in the absence of anything but 'everyone knows' and
perhaps a few anecdotes."

So, you have no proof is what you're saying. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:03 PM

It has been demonstrated by research that elderly people often revert to childish racist notions they learned as a child. Do they do it because there are fewer social resrictions placed upon the elderly or are they merely senile regarding racism?



We could euthanize the elderly before they reach the racist stage but then there is the issue of people who are racist there whole life like Al Sharpton.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:15 PM

"The unreliability of IQ tests has been proved by numerous researchers. The scores may vary by as much as 15 points from one test to another,29 while emotional tension, anxiety, and unfamiliarity with the testing process can greatly affect test performance.30 In addition, Gould described the biasing effect that tester attitudes, qualifications, and instructions can have on testing.31 In one study, for example, ninety-nine school psychologists independently scored an IQ test from identical records, and came up with IQs ranging from 63 to 117 for the same person.32

In another study, Ysseldyke et al. examined the extent to which professionals were able to differentiate learning-disabled students from ordinary low achievers by examining patterns of scores on psychometric measures. Subjects were 65 school psychologists, 38 special-education teachers, and a "naive" group of 21 university students enrolled in programs unrelated to education or psychology. Provided with forms containing information on 41 test or subtest scores (including the WISC-R IQ test) of nine school-identified LD students and nine non-LD students, judges were instructed to indicate which students they believed were learning disabled and which were non-learning disabled.33

The school psychologists and special-education teachers were able to differentiate between LD students and low achievers with only 50 percent accuracy. The naive judges, who had never had more than an introductory course in education or psychology, evidenced a 75 percent hit rate.34 When Ysseldyke and Algozzine cite Scriven, they clearly show their belief that the current system is in trouble:

The pessimist says that a 12 ounce glass containing 6 ounces of drink is half empty — the optimist calls it half full. I can't say what I think the pessimist could say about research and practice in special education at this point, but I think the optimist could say that we have a wonderful opportunity to start all over!35 "

from

www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:37 PM

I'm glad some other people are seeing the flaws in the term 'African American' as a synonym for black. I'm not American so thankfully I don't encounter it often, but every time I do I wonder what went through the inventor's head. I mean what about someone born to Africaaner parents in the USA? Surely he's an African American? Ditto Algerian, Morrocan Tunisian etc. Sure black isn't an accurate description of skin colour but neither is white.

Other terms that perplex me are ideas like that of a 'black culture' (or for that matter a white, asian, or whatever else culture but I don't hear these very often.) Which one? There are loads of different cultures in sub-saharan Africa. There are quite a few scattered around the carribean. I would guess that the aborigines in Australia vary culturally from area to area as well. If we're talking within a country like America or the UK people could come from any of these in addition to the more long standing post-colonial or slavery era populations.

Slightly off topic but I thought I'd voice my views while I was here.

On the subject of the IRA bombing etc being worse than 9/11, that's a tricky one. In terms of overall number of casualties etc. the IRA have done more damage, but that was over a period of time and in numerous different locations. I don't think there was a single event that was close to being as traumatic as 9/11 during the IRA campaigns. All the same, don't throw the author out because they were approaching the subject from a different angle.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:03 PM

Somewhat off-topic:

In the 19th century and earlier, people who are now called African American used to use the referent "African" for themselves. Two examples that are still in use today are the religious affiliations AME [African Methodist Episcopal] and AMEZ [African Methodist Epistopal Zion.

For various reasons, we [African Americans] used the group & individual referents "Negro", "Colored", "Afro-American", "Black", and others. In the 1970s, "African American" became the formal referent for Americans of non-White African descent {although that "Non-White" part isn't entirely correct since many African Americans have some White ancestry}. "Black" is still used as an informal referent for this racial group {though some Black Americans have lighter skin color than some persons who are designated White}. "African American is the formal referent. Given that for so many years African Americans were socialized by mainstream American culture to be ashamed of their African ancestry, in my opinion, it is good that many of us not only acknowlege but also celebrate that ancestry.

That said, I agree that Europeans and Asians living in Africa are also Africans and that when they come to the USA {not to mention Canada and South America} they could legitimately be called "African Americans}. I also know that there are many African cultures, and at many sub-groups of African Americans who have been in the USA for generations. And I know that there are other people throughout the world who are called Black.

Confusing, yes. But it bes that way sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:12 PM

Greg, please don't confuse criticism with ignorance.

It would be naive to assume that other members of this forum have not also studied psychology or had considerable experience in the application and interpretation of IQ tests.

"....are IQ tests biased? It depends. The answer is likely "No" if you limit interpretations to IQ scores and what they are shown to be, but "Yes" if you extend interpretations to "intelligence," whatever that is."
Richard Niolon, Ph.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:00 PM

My quotes were all from the article by Gottfredsonwhich is linked on that post. The article is complete, thanks to the University of Toronto website.
The journal "American Scientist" is published weekly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and contains a lead article on advances in a particular field, written by a leading investigator, short reports by scientific teams and individuals on their ongoing research, etc.The short papers are followed up by the authors in their full publications.

The study of intelligence and society, using the g factor, the various tests falling under the tag IQ and intelligence factors, and, increasingly, electrophysiological and other physical tests, is a rapidly growing field of study.
The general factor, g, which emerges from analysis of mental ability tests, is now used as the working definition of intelligence by most intelligence experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:46 PM

Fair enough. I suppose I was speaking from a certain level of ignorance. (As is all too common on the internet-at least I'm not alone!) All the same- aren't there better ways of making people proud of their heritage? Also, isn't it ignoring to a certain extent the changes since the black population left Africa? I mean, musically speaking for example jazz, gospel, blues, rap and quite a few other genres and sub-genres are not African. (Though African music may have played a big part in how they came to be.) Anyway, back to the yer man Watson. Have any main-stream scientists supported his claims? Or even parts of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

I'd love to see Juneteenth added as a federal holiday!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:33 PM

"Anyway, back to the yer man Watson. Have any main-stream scientists supported his claims? Or even parts of them?"


                     If any mainstream scientists had an inkling that Watson might have some kind of a vague point, does anybody think he/she would say anything that could be picked up by the media?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 09:38 PM

Q -

"In the heat of the debate:"

The journal "American Scientist" is published weekly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and contains a lead article on advances in a particular field, written by a leading investigator, short reports by scientific teams and individuals on their ongoing research, etc.The short papers are followed up by the authors in their full publications.

This is an accurate description of Scientific American, which is where the Gottfred article appeared.

"Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S., has been bringing its readers unique insights about developments in science and technology for more than 150 years.

"SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a member of a distinguished international publishing enterprise -- Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH."

While it is not a "peer reviewed professional journal" "Scientific American draws much of its content from such sources, and is respected as a reliable reporter on mainstream science to the general public. It is, however, a "journalistic product" rather than a "scientific journal" in the traditional sense.

The principal magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science is, I believe, called just Science.

The American Scientist magazine is published by "Sigma Xi: The Scientific Research Society." Some, but not all articles are "peer reviewed" prior to publication, and those that are not are clearly identified.

Any of the three would be a credible source, but in this case the article does come from Scientific American.

This is not an argument with the article. I've read it and find it contains much useful information. I've also checked some of the references it cites, and my assessment is that it is a "worthy input" here.

I'd suggest further, that some who've already commented about it should read it first. It's not all that long, although there are a couple of "big words" in it.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:02 PM

Watson's basic point, that intelligence may vary by group, is understood, and acceptance implied in many papers. His point rests on the assumption that intelligence has a biological basis, in particular one that operates along classical genetic lines." *
An article by Brandon Keim in "Wired Science" mentions the following papers:
Scientific American- An article in the Journal of Biosocial Science supports the notion that Ashkenazi Jews may be genetically disposed to higher intelligence (Includes Einstein, Mahler, Freud).
CNN News- Scientists at Princeton create a genetically engineered 'smart mouse.'
PHYSORG.com- Geneticists at Washington Univ. School of Medicine St. Louis (a Jesuit school) confirm association of gene CHRM2 with performance IQ.
New York Times- Nicholas Wade; Dr. Robert Plomin, in journal Psychological Science, "Newly Found Gene May Be Key to High IQ."
Human Molecular Genetics journal, Bruce Lahn, "Key gene found for Evolution of Human Intelligence."

*Many more references- see article Intelligence by Race- Watson

The article goes on, however, to refute Watson, and logically with regard to race, largely because so far only statistical data are supportive, but it seems to me lack of data is the real reason for rejection of the hypothesis that there are racial differences in intelligence.


Of course I have sometimes thought that my lack of genius was the result of dilution of my Irish ancestry by the English.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:06 PM

T'was the Guinness, Q, the Guinness.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 01:27 AM

He's right though. Orientals are the smartest and have the shortest whizzers. White people are in the middle. Africans aren't the smartest but have the longest whizzers.

He's not a racist. It's PC that's done him in--and those who practice it.

It's caused by global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 03:22 PM

Africans only have the longest whatevers when it's limp, though. Same size when erect. No (or less) shrinkage...

And what would be the matter with the people of different physiology through the geographical isolating effects of evolution to have evolved different intelligences?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 03:45 PM

Different intelligences, depending on environmental factores (ie: a need to know) is quite different than implying that one type of intelligence is better than another. Like I said, IQ only determines your ability to do well in school.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 07:51 PM

I think the argument that there's no reason to believe people in different areas do worse or better in IQ tests is fairly believable. The issue is whether it's about cultural differences, educational ones, genetic ones, even maybe some others. Watson's great 'appeal to reason' based on a couple of his friends experiences with black employees suggests that he might be a tad biased on the issue. That's my understanding anyway. (That was understatement by the way in case anyone missed it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 10:35 PM

Like I said, IQ only determines your ability to do well in school.

IQ is a measurement of horsepower, not performance. Many people with high IQs do poorly in school because they quickly lose interest in the subject matter and pace. They often spend their time looking out the window and thinking about other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 10:40 PM

I think that jazz, blues, and other sorts of african-derived music reflect a high level of abstract reasoning--and intellectual quickness, too. A lot of non-african-derived sorts can't do it--many can't even hear it---what does that tell us, boys and girls?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 12:46 AM

fumblefingers - Thats why I said it only measures your ability ...

Just because you're able doesn't mean you will.

I would also like to make sure that people understand that education and schooling are two different things.

IQ does not measure your ability to learn in other environments.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 02:35 PM

Ho hum. Regardless of what the studies show, no one will shift their opinion.
Also obvious that understanding of G and IQ tests is frozen in the days of Binet.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:59 PM

Robert J Sternberg, who is listed as "Dean of School in Arts and Sciences & professor of Psychology at Tufts University", wrote a commentary piece on Watson's comments and the responses to them in New Scientist No. 2627, 27 Oct 07 (p24).

After giving a brief description of differing components of intelligence Sternberg wrote "Skin colour correlates only weakly with genetic differentiations" and "Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one ...[deriving] from people's desire to classify."

I hope nobody interpreted my comments about Scientific American as "dismissive". I agree with JiK's description of it and have sought it out whenever I've wanted a succinct summary of a field; I still remember the effect of September 1964 (?) issue on plate tectonics as the final nail in the coffin of "land bridges explain everything". But when trying to get students to understand the dynamic state of our comprehension of various fields (try homonin evolution), the students found Scientific American gave an authoritative tone while New Scientist articles (necessarily shorter in a weekly) gave more of the cut and thrust of debate. The Sternberg piece isn't even an article, but commentary and, presumably, only a spur to further investigation.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:20 PM

I don't have time to do any serious reading or thinking about Watson's present remarks.

I do want to say that I read Watson's 'Double Helix' when it was a new book, and he struck me as a shallow and mean-spirited person. There is no doubt that he is intelligent. He also displayed an enjoyable, malicious wit, but he seemed to lack empathy and wisdom.

When it comes to studying life, he should probably stick to molecules.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:27 PM

No one here has yet quoted the good doctor. He said in his apology that there is no scientific evidence for his assertion. That outta close the matter, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Trevor
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 04:32 AM

I don't know whether anybody's said this already but it occurs to me that the question isn't so much about how intelligent we are, more about how we are intelligent.Can't remember whether that's Goleman- or Gardner-speak, but for me its about some of us finding it relatively easy to understand how a flower grows but immensely difficult for us to understand and use a musical instrument. For others music might be easy but playing football is difficult. So what are we going to measure?