Work commitments impose yet another short bout of blaryngitis. More blogorrhoeaic dismarrhoea soon.
Meanwhile, please send all hate mail in a stamped self-addressed envelope to:
Home For The Perpetually Appalled
AND ANOTHER LEFTIE WHINGE
- OF SELF-PERPETUATING BIGOTRY DRESSED UP IN (WHITE) LAB COATS
One John Ray blogs thusly: "I am pleased that my recent posting on the matter of race and IQ has not attracted any hate mail."
Sorry not to get back to you sooner, John.
Quoth John: "As psychometrics is my academic specialty, I have always taken an interest in studies of IQ."
Which, I submit, is a bit like saying 'astrology is my academic specialty'. Better still, phrenology ...
Robert Sternberg (in *Psychology Today* 13/4: 1979. Pp 27-41.), as thoughtful and innovative a dabbler as ever entered this morass (not only because he seemed vaguely interested in what it was these boffins thought they were measuring, but also because he saw process where the number crunchers had seen what they always see, a fucking number - which, of course, those in the iron cage of bureaucratic rationality effectively deploy to categorise, stratify and - gasp - validate the status that allows them to pass their pompous judgements on objectified and pre-classified populations), saw childhood enculturation at work.
This is, naturally, because intelligence never exists outside a socio-cultural setting, and can therefore not be measured outside same. So maybe the advent of widely accessible formal education (ie *public* education), whereby all get access to the inculcation of the canonical knowledge prized by the judges, is the variable you're looking for when you try to explain the 'Flynn Effect'. This shouldn't be too hard to test, as current Australian education policy is bent on reproducing the very differential access conditions of the 19th century against which Flynn measures more recent findings. The rise in IQ traces the rise of public education, John.
This might also contribute to explaining your observations that:
"Sadly for those who hate the idea of genetic influences, however, the IQ increases have not closed the usual big gap between average black and white IQ levels. Negroes have forged ahead but whites have forged ahead too."
'White' and 'black' are ascribed qualities (look at the brouhaha going on in Tassie just now), and that ascription (and concomitant avowal, too, I suspect) plays a decisive part in determining what sort of knowledge you bring to an IQ test. 'Genetic' may play a role, but I doubt 'race' is a scientifically tenable category, so I suggest we leave that one alone ...
Anyway, my suggestions also help make sense of this bit:
"Israelis of European origin (Ashkenazim) have an average IQ of about the European norm (100) whereas Israelis from the Arab lands (Sephardim) have the quite low average IQ of 88."
If we're measuring Europeaness, European enculturation would assist the subject, no?
Now, John claims that "I spent a long time trying to get what I wanted to say just right before I posted it". Bollocks. Else whence come blogturds like this:
"... it suggests to me that Arabs in general are pretty thick. That would certainly go a long way towards explaining what I suggested (in my post of 18th October) was their stupid reaction to negotiation with Israel."
"I am afraid that the obvious explanation is that it was mainly the foolish (idealistic?) Jews of European origin who have ended up in Israel. The smart ones are in New York."
"The only policy implication that I see as flowing from an acceptance of this in a decent society is that we may often have to treat some blacks as we do any other handicapped people -- kindly."
Neither kind nor the only policy implication, John. Just tendentious rubbish. Get some Stephen J Gould into you and wise up a little.
As for this:
"American Leftists always attribute this to the poor upbringing that black children receive (and since that is not very complimentary to black mothers they then blame black “culture” -- and that, of course, is the fault of whites!)."
It's not just Mums who bring kids up, it's society. Whilst society persists in 'thinking' like John does, the prophecy fulfills itself - the symptom given the rank of the disease. And we're not blaming 'whites' - we're blaming the nonsensical social practices and scientism that go on in the name of untenable criteria and their tendentious meanings. Generally speaking, 'whites' aren't to blame (although there are exceptions to the rule); 'whiteness' (and the mutually-constituting 'blackness') is what's to blame. After all, 'patriarchy' is a critique of a social system, not of men, and 'Capitalism' is a critique of a social system, not of capitalists.
"So the obvious experiment to test the Leftist theory is to have black children adopted into white families and see what happens."
No, it isn't. John says he once taught sociology. Well, a bit of sociology would help a lot right here. And John should avoid making the mistake so many bean-counters-dressed-up-as-social-researchers make: giving up on validity in pursuit of their precious reliability. John's missives evince absolutely terminal content validity and external validity problems.
As does the rubbish he writes about the left in general.