noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
That makes a lot of sense and is also the impression I've had of IQ tests that I've taken.
Liberal Creationism, or: Yippee, It’s Bell-Curve Time Again!
- Thread starter Guybrush
- Start date
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Short article on school performance and parental income levels:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7141169.stm
Interestingly, notice (in the graph halfway down) that even bright kids from high-income families apparently get 'worse' between 3 and 5, and slow kids from low-income families get 'better', i.e. there is tendency of high- and low-achievers to migrate towards the middle ground.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7141169.stm
Interestingly, notice (in the graph halfway down) that even bright kids from high-income families apparently get 'worse' between 3 and 5, and slow kids from low-income families get 'better', i.e. there is tendency of high- and low-achievers to migrate towards the middle ground.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
(P.S. The graph also shows the progress of slower kids from well-off families and brighter kids from poor families; it is by no means implying that rich=clever/poor=thick.)
Last edited:
Guybrush
Dittohead
Here is a correction for Gladwell’s New Yorker piece:
I take exception with some of the other things in it, but more on that when I get the time.
I take exception with some of the other things in it, but more on that when I get the time.
as to the second, I did not say that it was not being made use of, particularly in the education world. whether or in what context it is valuable is another thing. What it means for society, in terms of what decisions should be made based on it, is what I am talking about.
as to the first, many academic papers still discuss IQ, but they mostly do it in a very different context than I see it being discussed here, and defining it in a very specific and limited way, without linking it to policy recommendations are generalizations about groups outside the study etc etc. Thus the New York Times article is a popular example of something which should be no surprise to people in the field, I would wager.
sure it is a very demeaning stereotype. because it comes with it a host of other restrictive perceived attributes: social awkwardness, sexual inadequacy, repressed, uptight, bookish, etc., etc.
its effects are exactly as positive as saying blacks are physically more fit (and mentally challenged).
i have experienced this my entire adult life -- any and all such limiting, debilitating, and restrictive notions of a "race" is damaging and hurtful.
(according to this way of thinking only "whites" are well rounded and good at everything.)
Another nice comment on a set of articles on these issues is here:
http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=3835
http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=3835
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
No, not 'specially, but I can't help seeing it on TV or in newspapers from time to time and it does seem as if a disproportionate number of them are black, especially in the heavier categories.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh. Fair enough, shows what I know. Although even I'd heard of that Russian guy who is basically a giant...
Guybrush
Dittohead
New data.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5866/1100
The full monty is subscribers only, but the findings pretty much echo that DNA variation diagram, or whatever it was, that Vimothy posted earlier in this thread.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5866/1100
Human genetic diversity is shaped by both demographic and biological factors and has fundamental implications for understanding the genetic basis of diseases. We studied 938 unrelated individuals from 51 populations of the Human Genome Diversity Panel at 650,000 common single-nucleotide polymorphism loci. Individual ancestry and population substructure were detectable with very high resolution. The relationship between haplotype heterozygosity and geography was consistent with the hypothesis of a serial founder effect with a single origin in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, we observed a pattern of ancestral allele frequency distributions that reflects variation in population dynamics among geographic regions. This data set allows the most comprehensive characterization to date of human genetic variation.
The full monty is subscribers only, but the findings pretty much echo that DNA variation diagram, or whatever it was, that Vimothy posted earlier in this thread.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Yeah, the genome basically supports the "Out of Africa" theory, but the sentence you highlight (we observed a pattern of ancestral allele frequency distributions that reflects variation in population dynamics among geographic regions) describes ethnicity rather than "race"--race and geography have little to do with one another in any scientifically precise or accurate way, whereas ethnicity and geography are very specifically linked and can be properly accounted for with recourse to genome mapping.
Re the original objection to the "bell curve" argument: the point is not that populations don't have certain common ancestors or traits, anyway, the point is that current concepts/notions of what constitutes "race" are too imprecise to be scientifically accurate or biologically relevant.
in most circumstances i think so.