Remember that psychiatrist who lost his job? What`s his name... Doc Mailloux? He had his own radio show. Remember? You know why he lost his job (both on the radio show and as a psychiatrist)? Because he was pushing the same theory as you. Actually, he put it exactly like you too (paraphrasing
): "The "cause" of IQ difference was suggested (not by me) to be generations of natural selection." He said it on national television. So it must be true! (Just like since you found it on GOOGLE in "like, not even two seconds" it MUST BE TRUE...) He said it wasn`t him who said it first, but other `scientists` (actually, he said: "I have the study on the backseat of my car"
). You know which study he was referring to? I know, because the first anthropology class I ever took (I dropped out of anthropology after 3 classes because I`m not a Relativist either
) went over all the BS theories that came out of the discipline, and this one (early 50s) was one of them. It came after CRANIOLOGY (early 20th; theory that the size of the skull is linked to a particular intelligence). You know why these theories were put in the `BS theory` category? No, not because of difference of opinion or `liberal bleeding-heart syndrome`. BECAUSE THE `SCIENTISTS` WHO PUBLISHED THEM INVENTED THEIR NUMBERS AND WERE PUSHING AN IDEOLOGICAL POSITION THUS--NOT SCIENCE. American or Canadian universities (at least, those where the difference between correlation and causal relation is understood as I understand it--not as you understand it; and schools that are still allowed to push Creationism as the absolute truth don`t count either
) unanimously denounced them as PSEUDOSCIENCE, a long time ago. So come back to me when you have actual science to support your claims. Oh, not because on Merb we have to cite our sources but because if you want to get in a bigger-than-you debate you`re going to have to start showing at least SOME evidence, like a peer reviewed study, you know, the kind published in academic journals NOT the web. Well, only if your goal is to convince me you`re more right than Doc Mailloux
Nice save. Not.
Ever hear about Jane Elliot? Type her name in google and "blue eye brown eye experiment". A summary: The experiment was run over two days. A class of schoolchildren was told there was `proof` that kids who had blue eyes were smarter than those who had brown eyes. Kids who had blue eyes promptly started oppressing the brown eyed kids. Brown eyed kids promptly responded by taking on their oppressed role. Blue-eyed kids had no trouble answering the teacher`s questions. Brown eyed kids made more mistakes and didn`t want to answer the questions after a while. The next day, the professor came back and said there had been a mistake. It was actually brown-eyed kids that were smarter. You would have expected those kids who had experienced being mocked and oppressed to not do it back to the blue-eyed kids right? Well no. They just as quickly took on their new roles.
The study was recently repeated (and has often been repeated over the last decades, with the same results) in a Quebec school, for a TV show on a French channel called Zone Libre. I think you can go download it on Radio-Canada. Parents gave their permission for the kids to be in this experiment. It was a very hard thing to watch.
Elliot originally came up with the idea to better understand how discrimination works. Not only are people more likely to discriminate against people if they belong to the culturally accepted `better group`, but belonging to a discriminated group has a CLEAR impact on will-- not `intelligence`, read carefully: that kids who were discriminated against no longer WANTED to even try to answer the prof`s questions, or if they did, made more mistakes, even if these kids had been top of their class before. In other words, if you put those same kids in front of an IQ test, instead of a prof asking you to go answer a question on the blackboard, their WILL to complete the IQ test as successfully as possible will be impacted, and indeed, as I`ve recently been made aware of, when the Elliot experiment was redone with an IQ test (in a documentary for PBS), the `smart` blue-eyed kids scored BETTER on average then the brown-eyed kids who had been told they were stupid.
I forgot to mention that the professor in all this would say to the brown-eyed kids, when they made a mistake: `Oh, it`s ok. That`s because you have brown eyes and are less intelligent than the blue-eyed kids.`
That`s an ideological position, not a `theory` that has been scientifically demonstrated as true.
You sound exactly like Mailloux. Didn`t he teach at McGill on the side? I forget which university it was. Good parrot, you.
Find me a standardized IQ test that can test people from all the nations of the world without discrimination to the knowledge that is valued in their society. Ok, maybe that`s too hard. Find me a peer-reviewed study that supports what you`ve just said. Find it on Google if you want, it`s ok. Like the UN World IQ report. That must be available online.
Blah, blah, blah. Stick to physics or biochemistry or whatever subject it is that you are knowledgeable enough to discuss without talking out of your (_Y_)
(sorry, please don`t take me too seriously
I love you too)
I didn`t say that "there`s a correlation between poor kids and poor performance (IQ and/or school)." I didn`t say poor kids were more likely to have low academic acheivement but kids
with low SE status were more likely to have low academic achievement as compared to kids with high SE status. Poor socio-economic status means a heck of a lot more than being poor. I say you go back to grammar school because quite clearly, you lack in the reading skills required to debate this sort of thing. Also, I didn`t `suggest` a connection, I expressed a convention in this field of research, based on
evidence. Quite different from pseudoscience.
And you know why I never say `cause` instead of `correlation`? Because the convention is also that we can`t `prove` much with respect to human behavior, social, political, etc, whatever you want to call it, because there are TOO MANY POSSIBLE CONFOUNDING VARIABLES.
Good day,
t76