People Of Colour Only Good For Cleaning Toilets Or Washing Dishes...

cornnifer

cornnifer wrote:

Isn't the Stanford Binet more of a personality test?

Maybe i'm thinking of myers-briggs. Oh well.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

The differences in IQ appear to have more to do with social class than genetics, so I agree with you there.

But would you oppose studies that question whether race is a cause of IQ levels? Or is that taboo and simply not allowed?

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

Isn't the Stanford Binet more of a personality test?

No, it's an IQ test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet

Some of the criticisms are there on Wikipedia. I still think you will always have some kind of bias, as bias as an IQ test could possibly be. The Mensa tests don't appear to have any bias.

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

But would you oppose studies that question whether race is a cause of IQ levels? Or is that taboo and simply not allowed?

No, I wouldn't oppose it. Blacks, Whites, Asians, etc... are sub-species of humans and will have genetic differences, some of which may account for cognitive differences. However, it is far more likely that environmental factors are attributable to intelligence differences.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

However, it is far more likely that environmental factors are attributable to intelligence differences.

Perhaps a group's environment causes their IQ to be different. I'm referring to natural environment. If a group lives in Australia, perhaps they don't biologically NEED to be intelligent - their genes focus more on being strong or fast??

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

Perhaps a group's environment causes their IQ to be different. I'm referring to natural environment. If a group lives in Australia, perhaps they don't biologically NEED to be intelligent - their genes focus more on being strong or fast??

Possibly, but Australian's are really just europeans. They didn't diverge very long ago in evolutionary time. We have to consider periods of millions of years to account for genetic differences.

Certainly the farmer's son is more likely to be muscular than intelligent. Intellectually impoverished environments cause a steady decline in the IQ of children.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

Possibly, but Australian's are really just europeans. They didn't diverge very long ago in evolutionary time. We have to consider periods of millions of years to account for genetic differences.

Certainly the farmer's son is more likely to be muscular than intelligent. Intellectually impoverished environments cause a steady decline in the IQ of children.

I was referring to aboriginals who consistently score lowest on IQ tests.

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

I was referring to aboriginals who consistently score lowest on IQ tests.

It is possible, a serious study would need to be performed. One thing is for certain, stereotypes affect cognitive performance. Any such study would need to have controls for the affects of environment and stereotyping.

amethgr8

The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification

from wikipedia

race is only a concept

Collin

CorporateWhore wrote:

No one here has been able to contradict the statements I've made using arguments. You simply call me a racist with absolutely no information supporting your platitude bullshit.

Case for Non-Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons (2004)

STEVEN F. CRONSHAW
University of Guelph - Faculty of Management
LEAH K. HAMILTON
University of Guelph - Department of Psychology
BETTY R. ONYURA
University of Guelph - Department of Psychology
ANDREW S. WINSTON
University of Guelph - Department of Psychology

Abstract:
This reply reviews the conceptual, methodological, and statistical foundations of Rushton, Skuy and Bons' article in this journal that compared Black Africans, Whites and East Indians on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, and concluded that the Raven's is an unbiased test. Through a technical re-analysis of both the internal and external validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper, we demonstrate that the Raven's Matrices test is in fact biased against Black Africans. We take issue with several additional elements of Rushton et al.'s study, including the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples. We briefly review Rushton's racial-realist research agenda and show that the assumption of test bias is central to advancing that agenda. Industrial/organizational and occupational psychologists should critically analyze and re-evaluate the science employed in Rushton's racial-realist research and also should better understand the ethical and social implications of accepting his reports of research findings on test bias and White-Black IQ differences as established scientific facts.

Truthmonger

even flow? wrote:

Remember the good ole days of colours posing in jockey uniforms on your lawn and shining your shoes. Hey truthm, shouldn't they feel good about doing dishes.

Umm, no. And you should show some respect here....I'm a fucking Love Boat Captain now. Hooooo !!!! Hehehe

blackredyellow

CorporateWhore wrote:

I was referring to aboriginals who consistently score lowest on IQ tests.

if the aboriginal people put together an IQ test with indicators that they thought showed intelligence you would score lower on that then them.

surferdude

I just wonder how we can all see and acknowledge physical gentic differences between races that we refuse to believe there can be intelligent differences between races. It sure seems inconsistent. Do we believe that intelligence has some how followed a different evolutionary path?

CorporateWhore

blackredyellow wrote:

if the aboriginal people put together an IQ test with indicators that they thought showed intelligence you would score lower on that then them.

Intelligence is an objective measurement; therefore, I would score higher than them.

CorporateWhore

surferdude wrote:

I just wonder how we can all see and acknowledge physical gentic differences between races that we refuse to believe there can be intelligent differences between races. It sure seems inconsistent. Do we believe that intelligence has some how followed a different evolutionary path?

From the time of the first homo sapien, all humans have had the exact same intelligence level and no population of people have ever deviated!!!! You're just being a racist!!!!

blackredyellow

surferdude wrote:

I just wonder how we can all see and acknowledge physical gentic differences between races that we refuse to believe there can be intelligent differences between races. It sure seems inconsistent. Do we believe that intelligence has some how followed a different evolutionary path?

I just think that intelligence is different then physical characteristics, and depends more on how you are raised then genetics. We hear stats like we only use 10% of our brains, it seems to me that there is enough potential in anyone's brain to learn.

Obviously there are some mental illnesses that impede that, but for "normal" people, I don't think intelligence is any more genetic then something like work ethic.

Collin

blackredyellow wrote:

I just think that intelligence is different then physical characteristics, and depends more on how you are raised then genetics. We hear stats like we only use 10% of our brains, it seems to me that there is enough potential in anyone's brain to learn.

Obviously there are some mental illnesses that impede that, but for "normal" people, I don't think intelligence is any more genetic then something like work ethic.

The 10% thing is a myth.

blackredyellow

CorporateWhore wrote:

Intelligence is an objective measurement; therefore, I would score higher than them.

but you are talking about measuring intelligence with an IQ test, which inherently would be somewhat subjective based on who makes the questions.

chopitdown

You know how they say we only use ten percent of our brains? I think we only use ten percent of our hearts.

Truthmonger

Collin wrote:

The 10% thing is a myth.

You're right, some people here are lucky to be gettin' 5% of the grey matter action.