THE SHRINKING GOP BASE.

How 'bout we just fix the tax code so that everyone pays their fair share. Then I think the redistribution will take care of itself.

The above statistic cannot be correct. I was taught in a psychology course a few decades ago that the separate American white and black bellcurves overlap. Yes, the white bellcurve is to the right of the black bellcurve. What it therefore also showed was that a percentage of blacks (on the right side of their bellcurve) have a higher IQ than a percentage of whites (on the left side of their bellcurve). The fact that there are comparitively few whites that have a higher IQ than other whites, and blacks, does not equate to all blacks having a ten point lower IQ than whites.

Also, IQ tests that are given when we are young only tell if a child has the average intelligence of a child his own age, or the average intelligence of a younger child, or the average intelligence of an older child. With time, we all have the capability to learn anything. The educational system is set up to sort the fast learners from the slow learners. Speed of learning does not equate to intelligence; in our society it equates to future possible utility by society, in my opinion.

Dear Sir-Foofie.

You say that you were taught in a psychology course a few decadesago that the separate American white and black bellcurves overlap and that the white bell curve is to the right of the black bell curve.

YES- You are correct.

you add--A percentage of blacks have a higher IQ than a percentage of whites.

YES- you are correct.

But, the question is what is the average black IQ as compared to the average white IQ.

Note:


Black-White IQ Differences
Daniel Seligman

There is no getting around certain large and troubling implications of black-white differences. The implications seem most troubling when you turn from the average differences and focus instead on the differences at the extreme -- when you contrast the two overlapping bell-shaped distribution curves and look at the proportions in each group scoring above and below certain levels. If you tell yourself that the top professional and managerial jobs in this country require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then you also have to tell yourself that only about 2.5 percent of blacks appear able to compete for those jobs. The comparable figure for whites would be about 16 percent. Total black population with IQs over 115: 800,000. Comparable figure for whites: about 30 million. If blacks had the same IQ distribution as whites, the black total would be over 5 million.

The data are even more depressing on the downside. An IQ in the 70-75 range, which many psychologists would label "borderline retarded," implies a life that is guaranteed to be short of opportunities. Very few students in that range will absorb much of what elementary schools teach, and virtually none will graduate from high school; few will succeed in finding and keeping good jobs. None will be admitted into the armed forces (required by law to screen out the lowest ten percent of the distribution). The bad news is that a substantial minority -- apparently more than one in five -- of American blacks have IQs below 75. Around one in twenty whites are below 75.

[...]

The black-white gap is 15 points when measured on the Wechsler tests, 18 on the Stanford-Binet. Both tests are, of course, normed so as to produce an average of 100, but the white average is a bit higher. On the Wechsler metric, whites and blacks average 102 and 87, respectively. On both tests, the gap between the races is almost exactly 1 SD (standard deviation). The gap of 1 SD has been observed since the earliest days of intelligence testing.

There are also significant black-white differences in the structure of mental abilities. The test-score patterns show that the two groups are good at different things. On average, whites do better on all the subtests, but their margin of superiority varies considerably from one subtest to another. Or look at it this way: If you took a sample of black and white children, all of whom had scored around 100 on the WISC-R -- that is, the black kids in the sample were above the black average -- you would expect to find significant black-white differences on six of the thirteen subtests. The average black kid would do better on Arithmetic and Digit Span; the average white kid would do better on Comprehension, Block Design, Object Assembly, and Mazes ...

These subtest differences have one common theme, and its name is g. The tests on which the gap is greatest are those with the most g-loading -- which means, in general, those that call most heavily on reasoning and problem-solving abilities. The June 1985 issue of The Behavioral and Brain Sciences carries a long report by Arthur Jensen analyzing eleven sizable studies of black-white IQ differences. The underlying data had been collected by different researchers at different times (but none before 1970). All the studies had several things in common: All were based on large population samples, all measured a broad range of mental abilities, and all included black-white breakdowns of their various subtests.

In all eleven studies, Jensen found consistently strong positive correlations between the size of the black-white gap on subtests and the extent to which the subtests called on g ... The correlation coefficient, after appropriate adjustments, appears to be well above .60.

In other words, the black-white IQ gap is in large measure a reflection of differences in reasoning and problem-solving ability.

This was not exactly news in 1985. Long before Jensen set out to quantify the "g effect" in black-white differences, it was generally well known that the differences were greatest in measures of abstract reasoning, not so great in measures of verbal skill, smallest of all in memory and rote learning.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America (New York: Birch Lane, 1992), 150-153.

farmerman wrote:

Re: genoves (Post 3647168)
According to your stats, are you saying that only a qwhite male is a valid vote (or one who should be given more weight?) Your post harkens back to a time when we would calculate a minority to be 3/5 of a white man.

Other than that your stats mean nothing, they show the diversity that the Dems have managed to concentrate upon.

**********************************************************************

l. I have assiduously searched for the "qwhite male" category. I can find nothing under that heading.

2.According to my stats, ACORN has been indicted for vote fraud and some ACORN workers have been convicted. There is nothing in the stats which show that a minority is 3/5ths of a man.

3. Of course, the Dems have been able to concentrate on "diversity". Many of those in that diversity are illiterate and highly BIGOTED.

Definition of Bigot---

A PERSON WHO IS INTOLERANT OF ANY CREED, BELIEF OR RACE THAT IS NOT HIS OWN.

That means the majority of blacks who voted for OB.

(or, have you forgotten the lovely phraseology used by OB's minister in Chicago--the Reverend Wright--"God Damn America"--

Only a true Bigot would preach such filth!

Foofie wrote:

With time, we all have the capability to learn anything.

Not so.

There are many scholars who claim that only a minority can really learn a subject like Calculus adequately.

But, here, Foofie, is someone who is far more pessimistic than you. He is Charles Murray, whose landmark book, "Losing Ground" persuaded legislators to press for welfare reform. You may remember that Clinton signed the bill.
**************************************************

On the learning capacity of children-

quote:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Charles Murray on the Lake Wobegon Fallacy
From the WSJ: First in a three part series:




BY CHARLES MURRAY
Half of all children are below average in intelligence, and teachers can do only so much for them.

... Some say that the public schools are so awful that there is huge room for improvement in academic performance just by improving education. There are two problems with that position. The first is that the numbers used to indict the public schools are missing a crucial component. For example, in the 2005 round of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 36% of all fourth-graders were below the NAEP's "basic achievement" score in reading. It sounds like a terrible record. But we know from the mathematics of the normal distribution that 36% of fourth-graders also have IQs lower than 95.

What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question. We only know for sure that if the bar for basic achievement is meaningfully defined, some substantial proportion of students will be unable to meet it no matter how well they are taught. As it happens, the NAEP's definition of basic achievement is said to be on the tough side. That substantial proportion of fourth-graders who cannot reasonably be expected to meet it could well be close to 36%.

The second problem with the argument that education can be vastly improved is the false assumption that educators already know how to educate everyone and that they just need to try harder--the assumption that prompted No Child Left Behind. We have never known how to educate everyone. The widely held image of a golden age of American education when teachers brooked no nonsense and all the children learned their three Rs is a myth. If we confine the discussion to children in the lower half of the intelligence distribution (education of the gifted is another story), the overall trend of the 20th century was one of slow, hard-won improvement.





We can do a better job of schooling, but not until we start talking honestly about differences in intelligence. Our schools and legislatures are constantly coming up with policies that are based on the Lake Wobegon Assumption, and the left half of the bell curve pays the price.

For example, in California, the state wants all students to have a shot at qualifying to attend the prestigious University of California campuses. So, public high schools are compensated based on how many students they have enrolled in rigorous UC-qualifying college preparatory courses (the "A-G" courses). So, it's common for 9th graders to be dumped into Algebra I even though they are still struggling with fractions, because the high schools get more money the more students they have in college prep courses, even though they are complete waste of time. Thus, in some schools, students can't start taking the remedial math courses they desperately need until tenth grade.

It should be mandatory for all principals, school district officials, and legislators to read The Bell Curve. Of course, the opposite is closer to the truth -- it's a career-damager to read it and talk about it.

I see that you are going to ridicule me for my poor spelling (actually its my typing). I have a crippled left hand that resulted from an explosion . My skills at typing are quite poor I admit (and I suppose that I should review all my posts-However, doing so would be a waste because Ive found that "MOST" people are able to discern the words hidden in my offerings.
If you have trouble finding a Google hit for "qwhit males" I suppose that your ability to process information is probably limited. (A condition that I already suspected from some of your offerings)


Your post contained the following


Or perhaps the 56% of certain Qwhite males who didnt. Yousee genoves, you are merely trying to assuage your qounded ego. You cannot accept that the majority of voters , collectively, elected a very smart and talented president. Also, you must realize that we can similarly scan the stats and analyze the numbers and categories of voters who repudiated McCain. If I was a GOP, Id look more at the GOP's "missing message" . Perhaps, Bush had so queered the landscape that no GOP was able to be voted in.

Im sure that you will not consider the numbers of people who actually left the GOP to vote for Ms Clinton and who never came back. (In Pa alone there were over 200000).

My only response to your original post was one of slight amusement. I can still hear the party faithfuls ratcheting up their rhetoric and claiming how Obama is gonna be the death of this country, (When , in actuality, Obama was handed a country already on critical life support).

UNless you have done this many times before,Im not sure that "assiduously" is the correct word that you wish to use. It does have a component of diligence and all, but it usually implies that youve devoted some part of your life to this effort.Perhaps you meant that you conducted a meticulous search. (Since it was, actually, only a one time effort)

Averages means very little for society. It might mean something to those that want it to mean something. Since my IQ, as a child, was high, I then have the privilege of dealing with people of lesser intelligence from all backgrounds. See it from my perspective.

assiduously means persistent. I referenced four sites. I think that would qualify as persistent.

Oh, come on, Foofie. respond to my post. Read it all. If you can't or don't please don't try to write it off with a few lines. I will repeat. If you wish, read it but don't show your incapcity by a terse and meaningless response.

You are the one who is unable to do research, Farmerman. 52% of whites voted for McCain.

I must amend that last post in the light of the following, Farmerman.

Note:

Whites voted for McCain 55-43% - Obama got the most white vote of any Democrat recent history, very similar to Clinton's percentage.

Blacks 95%-4% Around the same for the past 4 elections, blacks ALWAYS vote this way for democrats. Get off your high racist horse pal, only 2% more blacks voted this election than last...11% last election to 13% this election, yeah they totally caused the win.

Hispanics voted 66%-31% for Obama, the best EVER result for a DEMOCRAT, not sure why the moron who originally posted this said take a wild guess being as hispanics are less likely to vote democrat.
***************************************************************

Now, Farmerman, It is clear that most whites voted for McCain.

It is also clear that Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama as did Hispanics.

*********************

If you really believe that the median IQ of Blacks and Hispanics in the USA is higher than 95, you know NOTHING about measures of cognitive ability.

Obama won the votes of the stupid, the lazy and the misinformed.

I am sure that foofie and Farmerman are unaware of the following:

********************************

Foofie wrote:

With time, we all have the capability to learn anything.

Not so.

There are many scholars who claim that only a minority can really learn a subject like Calculus adequately.

But, here, Foofie, is someone who is far more pessimistic than you. He is Charles Murray, whose landmark book, "Losing Ground" persuaded legislators to press for welfare reform. You may remember that Clinton signed the bill.
**************************************************

On the learning capacity of children-

quote:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Charles Murray on the Lake Wobegon Fallacy
From the WSJ: First in a three part series:




BY CHARLES MURRAY
Half of all children are below average in intelligence, and teachers can do only so much for them.

... Some say that the public schools are so awful that there is huge room for improvement in academic performance just by improving education. There are two problems with that position. The first is that the numbers used to indict the public schools are missing a crucial component. For example, in the 2005 round of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 36% of all fourth-graders were below the NAEP's "basic achievement" score in reading. It sounds like a terrible record. But we know from the mathematics of the normal distribution that 36% of fourth-graders also have IQs lower than 95.

What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question. We only know for sure that if the bar for basic achievement is meaningfully defined, some substantial proportion of students will be unable to meet it no matter how well they are taught. As it happens, the NAEP's definition of basic achievement is said to be on the tough side. That substantial proportion of fourth-graders who cannot reasonably be expected to meet it could well be close to 36%.

The second problem with the argument that education can be vastly improved is the false assumption that educators already know how to educate everyone and that they just need to try harder--the assumption that prompted No Child Left Behind. We have never known how to educate everyone. The widely held image of a golden age of American education when teachers brooked no nonsense and all the children learned their three Rs is a myth. If we confine the discussion to children in the lower half of the intelligence distribution (education of the gifted is another story), the overall trend of the 20th century was one of slow, hard-won improvement.





We can do a better job of schooling, but not until we start talking honestly about differences in intelligence. Our schools and legislatures are constantly coming up with policies that are based on the Lake Wobegon Assumption, and the left half of the bell curve pays the price.

For example, in California, the state wants all students to have a shot at qualifying to attend the prestigious University of California campuses. So, public high schools are compensated based on how many students they have enrolled in rigorous UC-qualifying college preparatory courses (the "A-G" courses). So, it's common for 9th graders to be dumped into Algebra I even though they are still struggling with fractions, because the high schools get more money the more students they have in college prep courses, even though they are complete waste of time. Thus, in some schools, students can't start taking the remedial math courses they desperately need until tenth grade.

It should be mandatory for all principals, school district officials, and legislators to read The Bell Curve. Of course, the opposite is closer to the truth -- it's a career-damager to read it and talk about it.


***************************************************************

This speaks to the fact that Obama was elected with the votes of the mildly retarded--most of which, I am sure, are unable to read and understand articles on a newspaper's editorial page.

Assiduously is a poor word choice. However, be it not me to remind you. Initially, You seemed to be the judgemental one re: my typos.

Anyway, I stated that you would probably be more comfortable in the days of onstitutional Govt where a slave was calculated to be 3/5 of a white man for census purposes. Also, maybe you would reaffirm Dred SCott, since you seem to want to hint that, in your mind, only a white male's vote is worth counting.

Is that what you were hinting at?

.

Trying to make yourself feel better with that one?. Its a conclusion of someone with a really tiny mind.
The hidden racism within your post could be more carefully crafted so as not to sound like a dumass bigot. Your writing of these last few posts make me picture you a some hooded townsman.

I cant embellish your posts any more than youve already disclosed , so Ill leave it and just remind folks that your probably not alone in your racist logic.

...by running a campaign that raised more money, mobilized more volunteers, had a clearer message, and won the hearts and minds of the electorate.

(He already had the votes of lefties... so those "stupid, lazy and misinformed" voters must've been those that bolted from the Republican party....)

It is actually worse than I said. The top 50,000 in income make more than the bottom 150 million.

Do you mind read? I did not "write it off with a few lines." I answered it succinctly with a few lines.

Again, averages are composed of highs and lows. And an average is affected by the numbers in the highs and the numbers in the lows. It is the actual distribution that can affect society. A low national average can reflect only a few with an extremely low score, but with a majority with a higher score. If I took your post serviously, I could retort with a concern over the Caucasian average IQ, since being a secular Jew, secular Jews have a higher average IQ than Gentile Caucasians. Not believing in Jewish superiority, I believe the difference is sociological. Meaning if Gentiles want a higher IQ then they should move to a Jewish neighborhood, so their Gentile children can be immersed in the intellectually competitive nature of secular Jewish school life.

And, the reason it is likely all a non-sequitor is because I would guess that within the next ten years, or so, mandatory schooling might be raised to 14 years of schooling, and eventually to 16 years of schooling. With time, people do learn. Society is just set up to reward the fast learners, since there is just a finite amount of time for society to utilize a person's brain. With longer life spans, educational time length will expand, so many more people will function adequately in society, I believe.

No. I think you misconstrued my post. But it would be nice if you refrain from commenting about me.

Granted-Foofie-No more comments about you. Now, would you be so good as to address my post and indicate why it is not accurate? I would appreciate it if you could cite evidence.

I will restate my position more succinctly. The idea is fleshed out in a previous comment on this page.

It is clear that experts on cognitive studies show that African-Americans have IQ levels which are ten or fifteen points below white levels