tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post4755279946119509410..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Unstandard DeviationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-10322271266246381092015-10-26T02:35:03.186-04:002015-10-26T02:35:03.186-04:00Galtonian,
1. No. 2. Irrelevant. 3. Irrelevant.
...Galtonian,<br /><br />1. No. 2. Irrelevant. 3. Irrelevant.<br /><br />To elaborate, 1. the frequently reported "15 point, one standard deviation" difference is based on NO comprehensive comparable data. It is based on <i>ad hoc</i> compilations performed by people whose bias (and biased funding) was clearly expressed. The reported results are simply not credible. Most of the reported results are simply repeating Shuey.<br /><br />2. Whether or not I.Q. is heritable has nothing to do with whether alleged differences between African-Americans and Euro-Americans. There are much larger differences in I.Q. scores WITHIN the poorly defined groups than there are BETWEEN them. The hypothesis that racial or ethnic group I.Q. test scores reflect some kind of <i>group</i> heritability is simply not testable. The hypothesis (like magic) CANNOT be refuted therefore it is not a scientifically valid hypothesis.<br /><br />3. I.Q. testing and academic achievement are both historically specific institutions with deeply entrenched and ingrained cultural biases. To the extent there is a correlation between them that doesn't necessarily "validate" the test scores.<br /><br /><br /><br />Now I ask you a question. Do you know of any IQ studies in which a test was constructed by African-American psychologists using African-American children as the primary reference group and then subsequently administered to various ethnic and racial groups students? If not, why not?Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-53027037110452291562015-10-20T21:56:23.000-04:002015-10-20T21:56:23.000-04:00Hello Mr. Sandwichman,
I am curious.
Do you not ...Hello Mr. Sandwichman,<br /><br />I am curious.<br /><br />Do you not believe that African-Americans tend to have IQ scores that average about 15 points (one Standard Deviation) lower than Euro-Americans?<br /><br />Do you not believe that IQ (general cognitive ability) is a substantially heritable human trait?<br /><br />Do you not believe that racial group IQ differences are related to racial group academic achievement gaps?<br />Galtonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11542550046419854091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-26896551990580964342015-10-13T15:28:16.722-04:002015-10-13T15:28:16.722-04:00Thanks, anon. I'll check my sources again.Thanks, anon. I'll check my sources again.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-23138166565930687422015-10-13T10:52:16.208-04:002015-10-13T10:52:16.208-04:00In your post, you say that Dr. Audrey M. Shuey was...In your post, you say that Dr. Audrey M. Shuey was Chairman of the Department of Psychology in the Randolph-Macon College for Women, at Lynchburg, Virginia. This is incorrect. Dr. Shuey was a faculty member at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281441148461868719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-24549332175562667612015-10-02T01:35:48.213-04:002015-10-02T01:35:48.213-04:00Flynn effect.Flynn effect.john c. halaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17176419625607679150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-4810698484954245112015-10-01T11:11:15.595-04:002015-10-01T11:11:15.595-04:00Jensen 1969 article was published in the April iss...Jensen 1969 article was published in the April issue of HER. Moynihan reported to Nixon about it on March 19. That kind of impact factor is hard for "good speech" to match. Citizens United raises that outcome to a constitutional principle.<br /><br />The bias of Jensen's article confirmed Nixon's own squalid racial prejudices. Moynihan elected to remain loftily agnostic. Nixon' crude ignorance is somehow more forgivable than Moynihan's cautious disavowal. The nature of the emperor's new clothes was not an "open question," as Moynihan caviled. Moynihan should have known better. Instead of "good speech" countering "bad speech" we have pandering abdication.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-18805497006313405662015-10-01T04:36:49.949-04:002015-10-01T04:36:49.949-04:00Re-reading Sullivan's post (I read it at the t...Re-reading Sullivan's post (I read it at the time he posted it, too) I'm struck by how one wrong idea runs thru his and Chait's responses to TNC. The belief not just in the right of free speech, but in the positive value of all speech. It came up in the press's unthinking "Charlie Hebdo=heroes" stance as well. Noah Smith also falls for it. And the thing is, I believed it too, well into my first year of law school. The response to bad speech is good speech. And good speech eventually wins on its own merits. <br /><br />Only a white man can believe such nonsense.<br /><br /> But Chait and Sullivan really do believe it. It's an article of faith among all journalists, almost. Writers at Charlie Hebdo think it's funny to deliberately antagonize a persecuted minority in a country where it's illegal for that minority to wear certain clothes and that mocking supercilious sneer is a positive good for society?<br /><br />America becomes a better place to live because someone has the courage to publish the claim that black people are ("only on average", Sullivan exclaims, "on average!") stupider than white people because they inherit stupid genes from their parents?<br /><br />But, "the response to bad speech is good speech" is really easy for people on the business of speaking to belief. Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-63923553021026238622015-10-01T04:07:51.265-04:002015-10-01T04:07:51.265-04:00Well done.
Over at the Reality Based Community, ...Well done. <br /><br />Over at the Reality Based Community, Mark Kleiman frequently makes the point that there's a difference between beliefs where the accuracy of the belief is important for day to day living and beliefs where error is of little direct consequence except to signal tribal affiliation. <br /><br />A white, rural, Southern farmer believes all the science behind properly fertilizing his crops while simultaneously dismissing climate change as a hoax. The meaning of "belief" changes allowing individuals of sound mind and normal intelligence to tell pollsters that they "believe" the President is a Muslim. <br /><br />But how far up does this go? How sharply does a Tea Bagger's "belief" transition to Murray's "fraud"? (And I agree it is fraud in his case). <br /><br />Does Mike Huckabee believe Jesus stands for hate? My father uses the Moynahan Report as a touchstone, but when encountering an actual unmarried black father he is compassionate and understanding. <br /><br />Do libertarians really think that competition causes firms to self-regulate? In the face of Ashley Madison, Target, and the Federal Givernment all failing to safeguard private personal data in the exact same fashion? There's a bit of a network effect, but the Ashley Madison App is pretty close to a perfect market: you need a computer and a software engineer to compete. Is Rand Paul a fraud or dumb?<br /><br />Andrew Sullivan? Is there some part of him that admits the motivated reasoning on steroids that caused him to believe Murray's challenge to liberal TNR readers was worthy of the platform?Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.com