traveller_76 said:
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.
Is it common practice for a person to lose his job due to an opinion? I think it's fundermentally unfair for him to be fired due to his opinion. To think something is racist is to suggest that "RACE" entered your mind when the topic is discussed (which would make you racist). Would it be any better if he avoided using the common term "race" and had said "geographical groups of human"? Most genetic scientists don't believe in the existance of "race". Race is a layman's term. Think about it this way, races can mix... species can't. That means the concept of "races" has very weak genetic support. The line between race is DEFINED by humans, not by nature (thus completely meaningless in the minds of a scientist).
traveller_76 said:
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.'
Ask yourself this... whose fault was it? Was it the teacher's fault for saying "Blue eye kids are smarter"? Or was it the BLUE EYES who CHOSE to discriminate against the BROWN EYES? We can't control information JUST so that it won't be misused. The statement "Blue Eye kids are smarter" is innocent and (if it's true) a valuable piece of information. I agree that psychology plays a part in our world; but to suggest that adults behavoir the same way is... a stretch. How about a world where instead of "controlling the evironment" we "control the offending element"? Won't that be better? What I mean is: Instead of controlling Guns, Speech, Information and Ideas... we PUNISH those who misuse them (harder). We need to identify who's fault it is... then punish accordingly. It's NOT society's fault that John Doe murdered 200 women. It's JOHN DOE's fault ! If some idiot choose to do a "Hilter" after hearing about Rushton's research, it's the IDIOT'S fault (for being an idiot, and not Rushton's fault for being a researcher).
traveller_76 said:
You sound exactly like Mailloux. Didn't he teach at McGill on the side? I forget which university it was. Good parrot, you.
I don't think he teaches here. What I stated are my thoughts formed based on what I learnt in classes (even though teachers don't push this idea; we get it).
traveller_76 said:
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.
Really? If it exists, then I am certain it shows the same thing as Rushton's studies. Why? Because he took national information (for some of his data) from different countries; he didn't travel around the world giving out IQ tests.
The thing is... people are TOO afraid of racism. Thus, any data that even SUGGESTS something remotely racist, it will be suppressed.
Like I said many times before, if the test is racist (for Europeans, because we made the test)... then why aren't we the best? This shows that there are no (or at least very little) cultural bias. Mind you, I KNOW there is... just that it's not significant enough to change the results.
traveller_76 said:
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)
Anthropology is a form of science (it's related to biology and genetics). My views are based on text books and facts. The effect of environment on how species evolve is a very basic concept, I just applied it to humans.
traveller_76 said:
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.
You never used the word "poor", true. However, you would notice that I put "SE background" in brackets in my post. If you don't like how I reduced poor SE background to POOR, then by all means, read it with "poor SE background". It still stands. Stupid Kids (if you don't like that, then read "Kids who performanced badly in school/IQ tests) generally lead to stupid adults which then leads to POOR SE background. Do you think Will Smith have the same social economic standings as some other black guy? No. SE status is achieved.
What this means is...
Yes, you showed a correlation between SE background and Performance in school.
You suggested the kids from a poor SE background are likely to performance worse.
I agreed. BUT, I offered an explaination why (because kids from a poor SE background are likely to have "low intelligence" genes).
So:
Low IQ ---> low SE background
\
--> poor performance in school/IQ tests.
Since both are correlated to low IQ, they correlate with each other.
Remember, I am in NO WAY suggesting that kids who never had a chance to go to school would DO JUST AS WELL AS rich kids. I am saying "YES" to environmental effects; but I am also giving a nod to NATURAL talent. All else being roughly equal (environment), there are still difference in performance (kids from relatively similar background can perform drastically different). That difference must MEAN something; there MUST be a factor that's causing kids to perform better in school. I am simple identifing that "natural factor" as Intelligence.