BS: Racism of top scientist?

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:06 PM

T'was the Guinness, Q, the Guinness.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:02 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:41 PM

1, 2, 3, 4, _______ ?

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 - 12:37 PM

Cultural Bias in Intelligence Testing
It is extremely difficult to develop a test that measures innate intelligence without introducing cultural bias. This has been virtually impossible to achieve. One attempt was to eliminate language and design tests with demonstrations and pictures. Another approach is to realize that culture-free tests are not possible and to design culture-fair tests instead. These tests draw on experiences found in many cultures.

Many college students have a middle-class background and may have difficulty appreciating the biases that are part of standardized intelligence tests, because their own background does not disadvantage them for these tests. By doing some intelligence tests which make non-mainstream cultural assumptions, students can come to experience some of the difficulties and issues involved with culturally biased methods of testing intelligence.

The Australian/American Intelligence Test
The 10-item Australian/American Intelligence Test is drawn from typical items on standard Western-European intelligence tests.

The Original Australian Intelligence Test
The 10-item Original Australian Intelligence Test is based on the culture of the Edward River Australian Aboriginal community in North Queensland.

Chitling Test of Intelligence
One facetious attempt to develop an intelligence test that utilizes distinctively black-ghetto experiences is the Chitling Test. It is a humorous example that demonstrates well the built-in cultural bias found in most IQ tests. The Chitling Test (formally, the Dove Counterbalance General Intelligence Test) was designed by Adrian Dove, a Black sociologist. Aware of the dialect differences, he developed this exam as a half-serious attempt to show that American children are just not all speaking the same language. Those students who are not "culturally deprived" will score well. The original test has 30 multiple-choice questions - go to short version of the Chitling Intelligence Test (15 questions).

Redden-Simons "Rap" Test
Other, similar tests have been developed for Blacks (for example, the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity by Robert L. Williams) and for the Chicano culture and the Redden-Simons Rap Test.

The Redden-Simons "Rap" Test is a 50-item, multiple-choice test of vocabulary items typical of "street language" in 1986, in Des Moines, Iowa. On the short version of the Redden-Simons "Rap" test (12-items), "street" individuals averaged eight correct items, and college students averaged only two correct items.

Using "street" norms, any student who does not get at least five items correct is mentally retarded [sic.].

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:31 PM

" They can do this while ignoring
all the scientific data to the contrary, and fill up loads of column
inches in doing so. "

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

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:28 PM

... the African refugees in the US who are African Americans but do not share the culture of bi[at least]racial-americans-whose-ancestors-were-slaves-and-slave-owners-but-who-only-acknowledge-their-black/slave-side-and-call-themselves-african-americans.

Fwiw, there are "African Americans" whose ancestors may not have been enslaved.

**

There is apparently an interesting culture "war" brewing. [between African Americans and newly arrived Africans]

We do live in "interesting times", but then again, all times are interesting. I'm not aware of any cultural war between newly arrived Africans who are now living in the USA and African Americans who have been here for some generations. But that doesn't mean that it's not happening.

My daughter who is an elementary school teacher has shared with me that some Somalian children have had difficulties with other Black children teasing them because of their {the Somalia students'} dark skin. However, she has also told me that some other Black American students have befriended these Somalian students {who also are Black Americans in the larger sense of that referent}.

Wonder what the difference is in IQ testing between those populations.

So many IQ tests in the USA are culturally biased toward mainstream {meaning "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant"} culture. It would seem to me that newly arriving Africans who are not familiar with that culture should not be tested for IQ using these same tests that are also problematic for many African Americans {who have been in the USA for generations}.

Given these cultural biases, if these tests are given to both of these populations, it seems to me that their results would be basically meaningless.

So why set up competitions for who scores the best on meaningless tests?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:49 AM

Why quote Walter Lippmann on the subject? He's as much an authority
on the question of standardized testing as James Watson.

Look, some people, for whatever reason, have a distaste for
standardized testing.

Sometimes it's because of legitimate defects in the testing,
though concerted effort as bias-elimination over the last several
decades have made that argument less and less valid.

Sometimes it's because the test results have been employed by
intellectually dishonest people for nefarious rhetorical purposes.

Sometimes it's because the tests tell them what they don't want
to hear, and the only way to keep denying what they don't want
to here is to declare that the test, or more conveniently, all
such tests must be inherently flawed. They can do this while ignoring
all the scientific data to the contrary, and fill up loads of column
inches in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:01 AM

"Without offering any data on all that occurs between conception and the age of kindergarten,
they announce on the basis of what they have got out of a few thousand questionnaires
that they are measuring the hereditary mental endowment of human beings.
Obviously, this is not a conclusion obtained by research. It is a conclusion planted by the will to believe.
It is, I think, for the most part unconsciously planted... If the impression takes root that these tests really measure intelligence,
that they constitute a sort of last judgment on the child's capacity, that they reveal "scientifically" his predestined ability,
then it would be a thousand times better if all the intelligence testers and all their questionnaires were sunk in the Sargasso Sea."

- Walter Lippmann

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:58 AM

That is good. However, you missed the intent of that remark. It's like "it's a pretty stupid person who can only find one way to spell a word". Relax. PhDs do not confer sainthood. And you should be well aware that IQ tests have been used to supress people. As to your degree, good. I am happy for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:56 AM

>The PhDs you laud have designed IQ tests for a portion of the >population, then taken those tests to people from outside the culture >of the tested/normed and targetted group.

Well, when I was doing my own degree in psychology 30 years ago,
those of us in the testing and metrics courses were acutely aware
of the issues of cultural biases in testing and working very hard
to eliminate them and to be able to demonstrate that they'd been
eliminated. That's why the 'stupid people' who produce the Stanford-
Binet IQ test, for example, have revised it 5 times. And why the
'stupid people' who put together the Scholastic Aptitude Test are
continually refining it.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:55 AM

It was PhDs who designed the "No Child Left Behind" fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:45 AM

Speaking of PhDs--the name Watson ring any bells? You toss forth scholasticism as though it does itself equate to intelligence. Sheesh, you're smarter than that I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:44 AM

It measures the test writer's ability. The PhDs you laud have designed IQ tests for a portion of the population, then taken those tests to people from outside the culture of the tested/normed and targetted group. But I suppose that makes sense to you, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:51 AM

>It's a pretty stupid person who can't design a test that everyone can
>do well at.

Well, then I guess all those PhDs who've been working on the
problem for the better part of a century must be some pretty
stupid people.

Then again, 'a test that everyone can do well at' is a pretty
stupid test, because it doesn't measure anything, now does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:33 AM

It's a pretty stupid person who can't design a test that everyone can do well at.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:00 AM

Well, Crocodile Dundee was white, and he did very well surviving in
the bush!

I'm not being entirely silly, in fact.

The venerable Mr. Watson (who is by no means a 'disgrace' to science,
he's in fact on of the most distinguished living scientists) perhaps
suffers from the old 'when all you have is a hammer, everything
starts to look like a nail' syndrome. In fact, Watson may be confusing
'nature' with 'nurture' with respect to most of his remarks.

He is, after all, referring to 'social policies.' Well, if we look at
Africa we see a rather sad recent history of pretty lousy rulers and
regimes, who were on top of that difficult to deal with. I submit
that isn't because the guys in charge weren't intelligent, but rather
because they either lacked the training to carry out progressive
agendas, or the means, or the will (read 'corruption').

But those sorts of problems have everything to do with how societies
are structured and the context in which they operate. And the context,
interestingly enough, is really the aftermath of European colonialism.
The the colonial days are over, the mess and the broken governmental
and social structures which the colonial powers left still remain.
If there's a degree of social and political chaos on the continent
of Africa, that isn't the invention of the Africans, it's the legacy
of the colonizers who turned African society upside-down, subjugated
the people, did NOTHING to develop any sort of effective leadership,
and then deserted the place (or got tossed out) while looking over
their shoulders and in many cases bragging about the 'independent and
democratic state' which the Great White Fathers had bestowed upon
their former colonies.

So one finds oneself asking "now which racial/ethnic group
is lacking in intelligence?" once we put the situation of the African
continent into historical context.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:53 AM

I, as an American who grew up in Africa, do not use the term African-American to refer to American blacks. Nor do I capitalize black... now, Osama is actually an African American.
To digress even further, there is a thing going on (I have read somewhere, or heard on NPR?) about all the African refugees in the US who are African Americans but do not share the culture of bi[at least]racial-americans-whose-ancestors-were-slaves-and-slave-owners-but-who-only-acknowledge-their-black/slave-side-and-call-themselves-african-americans. There is apparently an interesting culture "war" brewing. Wonder what the difference is in IQ testing between those populations.
It's interesting the degree to which people who think of themselves as not racist actually are. My mom, one of the most inclusive people I know, actually thinks that for a white person to date a black one takes a lack of self-esteem on the part of the white one - which ASSUMES that said white person is anti-black, and that such an attitude is normal, or why would it take low self-esteem to date one?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:30 AM

For the record, I do not feel the need to state my position on Dr. Watson's comments that are the subject of this thread as Rowan and others here have stated my position so well.

**

Mrrzy,

I stand by what I said to you in my previous posts on this thread that "The last part of your 23 Oct 07 -10:04 PM post appears to me to have a built in implication that the only place where Black people can show our intelligence is in the bush..."

However, given the international nature of this discussion forum, I concede that it is possible that non-UnitedStaters may not as readily or may not at all associate the statement "surviving in the bush" with stereotypical images and negative opinions of Africans to the same degree that {I believe} many UnitedStaters have and still do. A variant form of that statement "Go back to the bush" {meaning "Go back to Africa"} has often been directed to Black people {African Americans}. That statement is very stereotypical of African nations and is very offensive. However, Mrrzy, I accept that you didn't mean your statement to be either stereotypical or offensive. That said, since the topic of this thread is Dr. Watson's comments about Africans, it seems to me that it was not {is not} unreasonable to for me {and perhaps for others} to believe that your statement about surviving in the bush referred to Black people.

I agree with what I believe is your and dianavan's {and some other posters on this thread's} core point that most-if not all-IQ tests are culturally biased.

I recall the 1970s Chitlin test. You wrote that "it was an "IQ" test that only poor inner-city folk could do well on, as it assumed their background knowledge rather than your standard educated rich person's". I would like to make a friendly revision of your statement. The Chitlin test assumed knowlege of Black street culture of that decade and also some general knowledge of African American history & culture {such as the names of singers like Bo Diddley} up to that decade. Black people and non-Black people of all economic categories could score well on that test if they were knowledgeable about Black slang of that decade, and familiar with other indices of Black culture.

Imo, a bad {meaning "not good"} example of the Chitlin test is found at https://www.unb.ca/sweb/psychology/fields/psyc1024/module09/write/essay/chitlingfs.html .

In that version of the Chitlin test, when you select an answer, the statement that lets you know that your selection is correct includes the sentence "you be eggheadish man". And if you choose incorrectly, the statement appears that "you dude not be eggheadish!"

What??!! "Dude??" "Eggheadish???". I consider these to be extremely inauthentic examples of Black vernacular then and now. In my not at all humble opinion, the developer of that version of the Chitlin test needs to enroll in Harlem 101.

**

With regard to the word "Black", my apologies for the confusion that may occur in my usage of this referent on this and on other Mudcat threads. Sometimes when I use "Black" I mean "African American". My statement about the Chitlin test is an example of that usage. But sometimes when I use the referent "Black" I mean the more inclusive referent for "a non-White person and/or non-White persons of African descent". When I used "Black" in my first post to Mrrzy on this thread, that is the usage that I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 03:16 AM

The last para in my most recent post should read
In this I think he was either successful (in which case he really is a racist) or, more likely, he was deliberately being provocative and "playing the racist card" (as it is regarded in Oz political manouvering) for "effect". If the latter is true, I'd have to agree with Robyn Williams' assessment of him and which I posted above. I expect better of such senior scientists.

Dropping parentheses, dropping quotation marks; one day I'll get it right.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:17 AM

Q, your original post, containing quotes from Gottfredson, rely for their correct interpretation on knowing which bits are omitted and which are exact quotes and, without having read the article itself I can't address the details fully. [I used to take Scientific American and New Scientist to distribute articles for students when I was teaching but the students objected to the tone of Scientific American articles and preferred those of New Scientist; they characterised the former as "handing down the tablets; everything in this article is definitive" while the latter was characterised as "here are the arguments for and against the proposition"; they preferred the latter. I mention this to 'declare my bias', if you will, in the spirit of properly rational discussion.]

But taking the notions one by one as relevant to Watson't quoted comments, I offer the following.
"Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life."
"Success in life" would appear to be a subjective notion rather difficult to treat with the same objectivity normally applied to investigations regarded as "rigorous".

"No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition."
This may well be true and such a global factor may also actually exist; its manifestation may vary beyond the ability of investigators to fully characterise it though and that fingers a problematic difference between the evidence and Watson's comments.

"the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. ...People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential-- and they are born that way...."
It is in the detail of which findings are taken for granted and 'how' such researchers use them that keeps their research rigorous; I have no particular problem with the generality of the statement but am wary of possible motives behind how it is then used.

"Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent aptitudes into intellectual equals." ..."differences in mental competence are likely to 'result in social inequality'" [' ' represents author's underscore].
I have no problem with the notion that the population contains great variablity and that some of it might also be inheritable; testing the relative contributions of genetics and nurture is always the problem and I doubt that twin studies have been sufficiently exhaustively applied to investigating them.

"She goes on- "Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered 'biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon'." [' ' indicates author's underscore]. She correlates speed of nerve conduction, brain energy used in problem solving, speed and efficiency in neural processing, etc., etc."
Again, Gottfredson may well be correct in her understanding of the associations and her attributions of causality, but I don't think there has been sufficient evidence gathered to make blanket statement that cover whole populations. And that is the intent implicit in Watson's statements.

I agree with her (and, I gather your) opinion of the inability of most journalists to both understand and report on such matters but we are discussing Watson's comments. He is a senior scientist with long experience at trying to correctly convey complex information to journalists; it is reasonable to expect such a person to be acutely aware of how information is likely to be interpreted and to ensure he presented it in a way that allowed the reporters to get his desired message across.

In this I think he was either successful (in which case he really is a racist or, more likely, he was deliberately being provocative and "playing the racist card" (as it is regarded in Oz political manouvering) for "effect". If the latter is true, I'd have to agree with Robyn Williams' assessment of him and which I posted above. I expect better of such senior scientists.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:21 AM

"Modern IQ tests are made up of about a dozen subtests which make insignificant 'impurities,' specific aptitudes or bias from social and educative factors."

I'm not at all sure what that means. Perhaps you can explain it in plain English.

When I ask a child to identify a picture of an electrical outlet and he says its a "plug-in", the answer is incorrect. I am not allowed to mediate. I only administer the test and score the results.

Thats how testing is conducted. Regardless of how 'insignificant' the impurities might be, the final score is always effected. I'd have to see these so-called, modern tests to determine how unbiased they are. I am certainly not going to take your word or Dr. Watson's word for it. His word is worth nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Q, as Guest
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:14 AM

"From its beginning, research on how and why people differ in overall mental ability has fallen prey to political and social agendas that obscure or distort even the most well-established scientific findings. Journalists, too, often present a view of intelligence that is exactly the opposite of what most intelligence experts believe." Further extract from the article by Prof. Gottfredson cited above.

Modern IQ tests are made up of about a dozen subtests which make insignificant 'impurities,' specific aptitudes or bias from social and educative factors.
For a variety of invalid reasons, people will continue to make inaccurate statements about the tests, such as those made above by Dick Greenhouse, Mrzzy, Dianavan and others, or refuse to consider their implications. The research of Prof. Gottfredson and others has gone far beyond speculation.

If Dr. Watson referred to a specific group, he, perhaps, is speculating in advance of current research. I know of no published studies which impose any sort of 'rank' upon genetic groups although individual differences in intelligence are clearly identifiable.
I have not seen any rebuttal of the arguments made by Prof. Gottfredson.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 11:18 PM

There's no doubt that intelligence tests are biased. Unfortunately, success in modern industrial societies is biased the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Q, as Guest
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 11:09 PM

Linda S. Gottfredson, professor or Educational Studies, Univ. Delaware, and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, is a defendant of IQ testing and author of a recent article in "Scientific American," "The General Intelligence Factor." She says that "Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life." ... No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition." ..."the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. ...People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential-- and they are born that way...." "Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent aptitudes into intellectual equals." ..."differences in mental competence are likely to 'result in social inequality'" [' ' represents author's underscore].
She goes on- "Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered 'biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon'." [' ' indicates author's underscore]. She correlates speed of nerve conduction, brain energy used in problem solving, speed and efficiency in neural processing, etc., etc.

Dr. Watson undoubtedly had the application of these studies to different groups of people in mind when he spoke to the reporters; no way were they capable of placing his comments in context. These studies are for the future; most people are not mature enough to even consider them.

Intelligence