Mxsmanic

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
BAE17F6D.1D0D6%[email protected]...

    > The problem is that the Stanford Whites scored
    > as well as the Asians if not told they were competing!

I'm not talking about one study, I'm talking about all of them, over the
past fifty years or so (actually, since IQ tests were invented).

    > I note again, however is that you don`t
    > document your claim!

No, I don't.

    > Indeed there is data which does show Japanese students
    > testing 10% higher on IQ tests than Europeans.

There are no percentages in IQ scoring. There are only standard deviations.

    > There is also a claim that IQs vary with per capita GNPs

Probably the other way around, and I don't doubt that.

    > The world's average IQ is 90, not 100.

By definition, the average IQ of a population is 100. Tests are normed to
ensure that.

    > The variations seem to be more regional
    > that "racial" since Iraq (87) and Iran (84)
    > are respectively Arab and Persian.

IQ is a polygenetic trait; there is no direct link between race and IQ.
However, there are correlations between certain ethnic characteristics and
IQ. These may result from common causes, or they may be coincidences.

    > Table 4 gives Israel a 94 rating, Table 3 a 90!

Why the exclamation point?

    > Might I conclude, Mxsmanic, that this is an area
    > you know little about?

You may conclude whatever you wish; your conclusions are not guaranteed to
be correct, however.

    > In not furnishing references you give the impression
    > of writing from off the top of your head.

I long ago tired of furnishing references. Most people already have their
minds made up on this subject, and no amount of data will persuade them to
change their opinions. And people who are open-minded and interested in
finding out the truth will do their own research; they do not need me to
tell them what to believe.

Mxsmanic

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
BAE17BC9.1D0D5%[email protected]...

    > I am going to drag you back to your original statement
    > but I will point out that you have not referenced
    > your claims.

You've already pointed that out.

    > I don`t think you can.

You've already expressed that opinion, too.

    > You did not respond to that statement but
    > drifted off.

I don't intend to provide references.

    > I am assuming right now you can not find a
    > source for you claim.

You are repeating yourself. Don't you think I read you the first time?

    > Everything I have seen says that it is probable
    > that for the "same intelligence" Black incomes
    > are much less that Whites.

It is not probable at all; on the contrary, when controlling for IQ, blacks
do just as well as whites, and sometimes better (mostly because of
preferential treatment).

    > These results alone show that intelligence is not
    > even the dominating factor to driving people into
    > poverty. Unmarried White women with two children
    > have an average 65% chance of being in poverty.

Unmarried white women with two children tend to be unusually stupid as well.

    > The lower IQs of Blacks is due to their socioeconomic
    > situation not the reverse!

The reason for a lower average IQ among blacks is not known.

However, SES does not affect IQ. Except in extreme cases such as neonatal
malnutrition or neglect, the environment has only a limited influence on IQ,
certainly not enough to force a 1-SD disparity across the board.

    > I know of no example in the world in which a
    > underclass does not score lower on IQ tests that
    > the upper classes.

That's because stupid people tend to stratify into an underclass. If they
weren't stupid, they wouldn't be on the bottom. Smart people tend to
percolate to the top.

    > The rough shift is about 10%. So expect Blacks to
    > score 90% of Whites ...

U.S. blacks are one SD below the mean for the overall population, which, if
I remember correctly, places them on the 15th percentile, not the 90th.

Mxsmanic

"Magda" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > Have you noticed the statue of "Spartacus" in
    > the Louvre ? It looks like (the young) Kirk
    > Douglas in an amazing way - although it was
    > done a century or more before his birth.

Nostradamus predicted this:

In life o'er candles break flowing grain
Callous bratwurst, limpid vinyl
Then over quaked chrome afire thrice pony
Never Mandy pulleth oreo gumwad

The only possible rationa translation for this is of course:

About a hundred years before Kubrick makes a film
Called Spartacus, someone will make a statue
Of Spartacus that looks just like
Kirk Douglas, star of the show

Zé Bastos

    >>> So using the word "latin" to describe physical appareance is
    >>> inappropriate
    >>> imo.
    >>Oh I don't know, you can say "latin type", when meaning that vaguely
    >>mediterranean look.
    >Like the Greeks?


We don't have there noses (hehe)

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 9/05/03 22:29:

    > "Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > BAE17F6D.1D0D6%[email protected]...

    >> I note again, however is that you don`t
    >> document your claim!
    >
    > No, I don't.

You never do, I was just pointing it out. My academic background
of writing professional articles forces me by habit to make some
attempt to reference some of what I claim. I will admit that
internet postings are sloppier in this respect, we have neither
peer review or editors to discipline us.


    >> Indeed there is data which does show Japanese students
    >> testing 10% higher on IQ tests than Europeans.
    >
    > There are no percentages in IQ scoring. There are only standard deviations.

Don`t be nitpicky, the average IQ is about 100, 10% is 10 IQ points so
Blacks in America and other broad underclass groups will have average scores
around 90 world wide. American Blacks in northern cities of the US will
score about 100.


    >> There is also a claim that IQs vary with per capita GNPs
    >
    > Probably the other way around, and I don't doubt that.

The direction of causality is not known. Do low IQs nationally
mean that the people are less apt and do not succeed economically
or does long GNP mean a poor educational system and a lack of
development of natural abilities? Etc. Whatever, there is a
statistical correlation and people will individually interpret
that as they will.

    >> The world's average IQ is 90, not 100.
    >
    > By definition, the average IQ of a population is 100. Tests are normed to
    > ensure that.

For American-Europeans who construct the tests! The world has other groups
in it.

    >> Table 4 gives Israel a 94 rating, Table 3 a 90!
    >
    > Why the exclamation point?

Because it is known that Jews in the US have higher than a 100 average IQs
(probably around 110-115 in the US) and there is a common idea that Jews are
smarter than non-Jews even among the non-Jews. I was underlying the
mythical aspect of this belief.

I lean towards "social determinism" rather than "biological determinism" to
explain IQ variations.

    >> In not furnishing references you give the impression
    >> of writing from off the top of your head.
    >
    > I long ago tired of furnishing references. Most people already have their
    > minds made up on this subject, and no amount of data will persuade them to
    > change their opinions. And people who are open-minded and interested in
    > finding out the truth will do their own research; they do not need me to
    > tell them what to believe.

Two of my dictums are that "strongly held ideas are never changed" or "once
a flat earther always a flat earther". But a lifelong habit of first
gathering the facts and then making the conclusions has been drummed into
me. Having to prepare articles for peer reviewed publications means others
have the responsibility of challenging my conclusions and the ability to
prevent articles from being published. So I do make some effort to back
up what I say.

The mechanism of backing up also educates one to new facts. I had not been
aware of the IQ-GNP book until until last year, the Flynn effect I had
known about for several years. A book led me to the latter, although the
Flynn effect is dealt with from web sources, if you already know the name.
Also the process of self-education goes beyond using the web but acquiring a
library of published work. The Web is particularly lacking in critical
information.

The contents of books are not available nor are most professional
journals available free. So if one has a deep desire, one must
go to University libraries to get information. Most web posters
are chair bound which is why they write off the top of their heads
mostly using old information they already have in their heads. It is
intellectually sloppy. My particular problem is in proof reading
and my wife does not check my internet postings as she did my
articles "to be submitted" in professional journals.

Earl

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 9/05/03 22:37:

    >> The rough shift is about 10%. So expect Blacks to
    >> score 90% of Whites ...
    >
    > U.S. blacks are one SD below the mean for the overall population, which, if
    > I remember correctly, places them on the 15th percentile, not the 90th.

That is what the "Bell Curve" says but that is now classed as "junk science"
by professionals who work in this field. The original data was not Bell
Shape but far from it.

Since you do little to educate yourself here is something I posted a year
ago on soc.retirement.

Earl

***


I have brought the "Flynn effect" up several time in this group but don`t
remember Jeffy or the other Bell Curve racists on this group dealing with
the issue. If you Google "Flynn Effect" you'll get a lot of hits and will
be able to wander through the wonderful world of IQ measurements.

I also noted that Jeffy did not comment on my pointing out that in
the Bell Curve study, the original data was not Bell Shaped, but far
from it, his authors having cooked the statistics.

But subject here is the shifting IQ problem, the Flynn Effect.
That our local racists should be ignorant about this means they
don`t understand the IQ debate that is currently raging.

A number of these will largely be "academic sites".


The Flynn effect is the measure of the increase in measured IQs with time.
IQ measurements are not static meaning, in some respects they are not
measuring IQs.

For instance, one of the sites says

" WHILE GENERATIONS OF schoolchildren, military recruits, job applicants and
Mensa wanna-bes have wrestled with IQ questions like these, some smart
scientists who study intelligence have been stumped by an even more
exasperating puzzle: why have IQ scores been rising? And not rising a
little, by a point here and there, but soaringÃ?27 points in Britain since
1942, 24 points in the United States since 1918, 22 points in Argentina
since 1964, with comparable gains throughout Western Europe, Canada, Japan,
China, Israel, Australia and New Zealand. The rise is so sharp that the
average child today is as bright as the near genius of yesteryear. ½This
shatters our belief about the rigidity of IQ,… says psychologist Ulrich
Neisser of Cornell University. It is powerful evidence that you can indeed
change it.

Note the line;



Another site jokes

<There is simply no doubt that Dutch men in 1952 had a mean IQ of 79 when
scored against 1982 norms. Has the average person in The Netherlands ever
been near mental retardation? Does it make sense to assume that at one time
almost 40% of Dutch men lacked the capacity to understand soccer, their most
favored national sport?">

As for Black Americans:



Such a White-Black gap exists in other areas in American life, especially
the medical and income.


If you wish to see old data on key cities children IQs throughout the world
see http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/NationalIQs.html

Paris, France scored the lowest with an IQ of 96.1, Holland with 109.4.
Another figure gives the Flynn corrected IQs, bringing them back over 100.
The test used produces a standardized IQ of 100 in the US. Hong Kong
children scored the highest with 116, Japan and Korea around 109.

***

The Flynn effect has been in the News lately since here is
a Washington Post article last Fall

****


http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...02-5949712.htm

October 2, 2002.

Race and IQ scores


Thomas Sowell

     Years ago, while doing research on education and IQ, I happened to be
in the principal's office at a black school in Cincinnati, as he was
preparing to open a large brown envelope containing the results of IQ tests
that his students had taken. Before he opened the envelope, I offered to bet
him that a large majority of the students with IQs over 110 would be girls.

     He was too smart to take the bet. Studies had shown that females
predominated among high-IQ blacks. One study of blacks whose IQs were 140
and up found there were more than 5 times as many females as males at these
levels.

     This is hard to explain by either heredity or environment, as those
terms are usually defined, since black males and black females have the same
ancestors and grow up in the same homes. Meanwhile, white males and white
females have the same average IQs, with slightly more males at both the
highest and lowest IQs.

     This is just one of many unsolved mysteries that is likely to remain
unsolved, because doing research on race and IQ has become taboo in many
places. My own research was financed in part by a grant from a foundation
that told me to remove any mention of IQ research from the activities listed
in my project's application.

     They didn't care if I used their money for that purpose, but they did
not want it on the record that they had financed research into race and
intelligence. Many schools and boards of education also did not want it on
the record that they had cooperated by supplying data for any such research.
Only when assured of complete anonymity would they let me into their
records.

     A well-known black "social scientist" urged me not to do any such
research. His stated reason was that it would "dignify" Professor Arthur
Jensen's thesis of a genetic basis for black-white differences in IQ scores.
But my own suspicion was that he was afraid the research would prove Mr.
Jensen right.

     As it turned out, the research showed that the average IQ difference
between black and white Americans Ã? 15 points Ã? was nothing unusual. Similar
IQ differences could be found between various culturally isolated white
communities and the general society, both in the United States and in
Britain. Among various groups in India, mental test differences were
slightly greater than those between blacks and whites in the United States.

     In recent years, research by Professor James R. Flynn, an American
expatriate living in New Zealand, has shaken up the whole IQ controversy by
discovering what has been called "the Flynn effect." In various countries
around the world, people have been answering significantly more IQ test
questions correctly than in the past.

     This important fact has been inadvertently concealed by the practice of
changing the norms on IQ tests, so that the average number of correctly
answered questions remains by definition an IQ of 100. Only by painstakingly
going back and recalculating IQs, based on the initial norms, was Professor
Flynn able to discover that whole nations had, in effect, had their IQs
rising over the decades by about 20 points.

     Since the black-white difference in IQ is 15 points, this means an even
larger IQ difference has existed between different generations of the same
race, making it no longer necessary to attribute IQ differences of this
magnitude to genetics. In the half-century between 1945 and 1995, black
Americans' raw test scores rose by the equivalent of 16 IQ points.

     In other words, black Americans' test score results in 1995 would have
given them an average IQ just more than 100 in 1945. Only the repeated
renorming of IQ tests upward created the illusion that blacks had made no
progress, but were stuck at an IQ of 85. But we would never have known this
if some researchers had not defied the taboo on studying race and IQ imposed
by black "leaders" and white "friends."

     Incidentally, Professor Jensen pointed out back in 1969 that black
children's IQ scores rose by 8 to 10 points after he met with them
informally in a playroom and then tested them again after they were more
relaxed around him. He did this because "I felt these children were really
brighter than their IQ would indicate." What a shame that others seem to
have less confidence in black children than Professor Jensen has had.


***

So it took an expatriate American in New Zealand to get at the truth.
In going there, he may have been able to remove his cultural blinders
and see. Jeff, now it is your turn. You are becoming brain dead in
Marin Country.

Earl

Lourens Smak

In article ,
Earl Evleth wrote:

    > > By definition, the average IQ of a population is 100. Tests are normed to
    > > ensure that.
    >
    > For American-Europeans who construct the tests! The world has other groups
    > in it.

the Intelligence-Quotient is a number which designates the difference
from the average, and the average is defined as 100. the (hypothetical)
range is from 0 to 200.

So, the average IQ is always 100, and it has nothing to do with ways of
testing and groups of people; it's just that the average of a test is
made 100, and a score will be above or below that.

;-)
Lourens

Mxsmanic

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
BAE51DCE.1D754%[email protected]...

    > You never do, I was just pointing it out.

Why?

Surely you aren't making the mistake of thinking that a failure to cite
exhaustive references somehow proves that I am wrong. That is a logical
fallacy.

    > My academic background of writing professional articles
    > forces me by habit to make some attempt to reference
    > some of what I claim.

When I'm paid to write, I can provide references, too.

    > Don`t be nitpicky, the average IQ is about 100, 10%
    > is 10 IQ points ...

I'm not nitpicking. There is a HUGE difference between SD-based scores and
absolute scores. A person with an IQ of 85 is not 85% as smart as a person
with an IQ of 100. In fact, we don't know what the actual absolute
difference in intelligence might be. The former person might be 99.999999%
as smart as the latter, or 0.0000001% as smart as the latter. There is no
way to tell. We only know that he scores 1 SD below the mean, meaning that
is score is lower than about 85% of the population, and higher than about
15% of the population.

    > ... so Blacks in America and other broad underclass
    > groups will have average scores around 90 world wide.
    > American Blacks in northern cities of the US will
    > score about 100.

The numbers I've seen were more like 85 for U.S. blacks, and 60-70 for
blacks in sub-Saharan Africa. Data for blacks in other areas is harder to
find.

    > ... does long GNP mean a poor educational system ...

Education affects acquired knowledge, not intelligence.

    > For American-Europeans who construct the tests! The
    > world has other groups in it.

Nevertheless, the world manages to get scores in the same range, with some
groups doing better, and others worse.

    > Because it is known that Jews in the US have
    > higher than a 100 average IQs ...

That's true, but you were talking about Israel. Only Jews of Eastern
European ancestry show unusually high average IQ; other Jews are simply
average. Israel has Jews of many ancestries, not just Eastern Europe.

    > ... and there is a common idea that Jews are
    > smarter than non-Jews even among the non-Jews.

It's an idea based in fact, if the Jews are Ashkenazim. Sephardic Jews have
normal IQs.

    > I was underlying the mythical aspect of this belief.

It's not mythical. The data support it. It's just that high IQ isn't
correlated with being Jewish, it's correlated with being Jewish and of a
specific ancestry (i.e., Ashkenazi Jews).

    > I lean towards "social determinism" rather than
    > "biological determinism" to explain IQ variations.

Most people who don't want to believe that not everyone is identical prefer
to believe the same thing.

However, the data indicate that at least half of manifest intelligence is
genetic. It is likely that genes place an upper limit on achievable IQ, and
while environment may be able to lower this somewhat (mostly only in extreme
conditions), it does not raise it.

Mxsmanic

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
BAE52258.1D755%[email protected]...

    > That is what the "Bell Curve" says but that is
    > now classed as "junk science" by professionals
    > who work in this field.

Nothing has changed in the interpretation of that book. Those who never
wanted to believe anything that it said still do not believe anything it
says. Those who wanted to believe everything it said still believe
everything it said. Those who were neutral have generally formed their
opinions and kept them. The book stands or falls on its own merits, not
based on "what people say."

    > Note the line;
    > is as bright as the near genius of yesteryear.>

Why, then, do we not have more people achieving what Einstein or Leonardo da
Vinci achieved?

We actually don't know how much the Flynn effect reflects real increases in
intelligence, for the same reason that we don't know how intelligent a
person with an IQ of 90 might be compared to a person with an IQ of 100:
namely, there are no absolute measures of intelligence. All IQ tests are
series of individual test items, upon which people get raw scores. The raw
scores are analyzed to produce a normal distribution, and IQ is simply a
number that indicates where a person's raw score falls on the curve of all
scores obtained. There is no way at all to determine just how smart a
person really is; one can only determine where a person stands in relation
to his fellows.

Thus, one can say that a person with an IQ of 85 is probably only as smart
as 15% of the population, but one cannot say that he is "85% less
intelligent" than the average person, because there is no way to determine
that.

I think it likely that absolute differences in intelligence are very small.
My own theory for the Flynn effect is that it simply reflects a very gradual
increase in overall intelligence in human beings, which is well supported by
the circumstantial data provided by civilization itself. The absolute
magnitude of this increase is impossible to determine: a 24-point rise
doesn't necessarily mean any greater increase than a 2-point rise, because
IQs are relative measures, not absolute measures.

Tim Hurson

With all this "Intelligence" flying about has anyone noticed that the only
mention of "travel and Europe" in this thread was in the first sentence of
the original post? Also, the poster Robbie, or should I say "troll", has not
responded once!

Tim

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > BAE51DCE.1D754%[email protected]...
    > > You never do, I was just pointing it out.
    > Why?
    > Surely you aren't making the mistake of thinking that a failure to cite
    > exhaustive references somehow proves that I am wrong. That is a logical
    > fallacy.
    > > My academic background of writing professional articles
    > > forces me by habit to make some attempt to reference
    > > some of what I claim.
    > When I'm paid to write, I can provide references, too.
    > > Don`t be nitpicky, the average IQ is about 100, 10%
    > > is 10 IQ points ...
    > I'm not nitpicking. There is a HUGE difference between SD-based scores
and
    > absolute scores. A person with an IQ of 85 is not 85% as smart as a
person
    > with an IQ of 100. In fact, we don't know what the actual absolute
    > difference in intelligence might be. The former person might be
99.999999%
    > as smart as the latter, or 0.0000001% as smart as the latter. There is no
    > way to tell. We only know that he scores 1 SD below the mean, meaning
that
    > is score is lower than about 85% of the population, and higher than about
    > 15% of the population.
    > > ... so Blacks in America and other broad underclass
    > > groups will have average scores around 90 world wide.
    > > American Blacks in northern cities of the US will
    > > score about 100.
    > The numbers I've seen were more like 85 for U.S. blacks, and 60-70 for
    > blacks in sub-Saharan Africa. Data for blacks in other areas is harder to
    > find.
    > > ... does long GNP mean a poor educational system ...
    > Education affects acquired knowledge, not intelligence.
    > > For American-Europeans who construct the tests! The
    > > world has other groups in it.
    > Nevertheless, the world manages to get scores in the same range, with some
    > groups doing better, and others worse.
    > > Because it is known that Jews in the US have
    > > higher than a 100 average IQs ...
    > That's true, but you were talking about Israel. Only Jews of Eastern
    > European ancestry show unusually high average IQ; other Jews are simply
    > average. Israel has Jews of many ancestries, not just Eastern Europe.
    > > ... and there is a common idea that Jews are
    > > smarter than non-Jews even among the non-Jews.
    > It's an idea based in fact, if the Jews are Ashkenazim. Sephardic Jews
have
    > normal IQs.
    > > I was underlying the mythical aspect of this belief.
    > It's not mythical. The data support it. It's just that high IQ isn't
    > correlated with being Jewish, it's correlated with being Jewish and of a
    > specific ancestry (i.e., Ashkenazi Jews).
    > > I lean towards "social determinism" rather than
    > > "biological determinism" to explain IQ variations.
    > Most people who don't want to believe that not everyone is identical
prefer
    > to believe the same thing.
    > However, the data indicate that at least half of manifest intelligence is
    > genetic. It is likely that genes place an upper limit on achievable IQ,
and
    > while environment may be able to lower this somewhat (mostly only in
extreme
    > conditions), it does not raise it.

Patrick V .

1) France is composed of various races and is adjacent to various
countries
2) As it happened with Spain, they were under muslim rule so there
were some mixing there
3) people who lives in warmer environments tend to be darker. I.e.
Norway vs. Africa, etc.
4) Countries are not generally groupings of a single race.

DA

On Wed, 07 May 2003 20:05:14 GMT, "Rojosh" wrote:

    > I just returned from Paris, where I stayed for 11 days. I was treated
    >very well (as usual) so forget the bullshit some posters are spewing.
    > My question is this, why are so many French people dark skinned? I mean
    >excluding Negroes, Asians, Indians, and others, many French are dark with
    >brown eyes and black hair. Where does that come from?

Devil

On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:33:13 +0000, Patrick V. wrote:

    > 1) France is composed of various races and is adjacent to various
    > countries
    > 2) As it happened with Spain, they were under muslim rule so there
    > were some mixing there

Really? When, where, when?

(We are of course all very familiar with the so-called battle of Poitiers,
which probably happened quite a bit further north incidentally, somewhere
on the Loire valley. Also of this minor Roncevaux event. Surely you are
too?)

nightjar

    > On Wed, 07 May 2003 20:05:14 GMT, "Rojosh" wrote:
    > > I just returned from Paris, where I stayed for 11 days. I was treated
    > >very well (as usual) so forget the bullshit some posters are spewing.
    > > My question is this, why are so many French people dark skinned? I
mean
    > >excluding Negroes, Asians, Indians, and others, many French are dark with
    > >brown eyes and black hair. Where does that come from?

The French get their dark colouring from the same place that peoples like
the Welsh and the Irish do - they have a lot of Celtic blood in them. Gaul
is the Roman name for Celt as well as for the Roman province that roughly
corresponds to modern France. The blond-haired blue-eyed French are the
anomaly, probably being descended from invaders from Northern Europe, a
group known as Normans.

Colin Bignell

Wolfgang Schwanke

wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > The blond-haired
    > blue-eyed French are the anomaly, probably being descended from
    > invaders from Northern Europe, a group known as Normans.

And the Franks, who France is named after.

Regards

--
Aprosdoketon, das (gr.): unerwartet gebrauchtes Fremdwort.

http://www.wschwanke.de/

Mark Hewitt

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > wrote in news:[email protected]:
    > > The blond-haired
    > > blue-eyed French are the anomaly, probably being descended from
    > > invaders from Northern Europe, a group known as Normans.
    > And the Franks, who France is named after.

Where did they originate from?