So why did the black firefighters perform poorly?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So why do YOU think the black firefighters performed poorly relative to their white colleagues on the firefighter's promotion eligibility exam?

I'll post a poll, but go ahead and post your thoughts.

As a graduate of UMASS amherst I had to pick the last option.

But in 100% honesty it was because they either didn't know as much or study as hard as the other firefighters who did better.



Ok one of the white guys who did good graduated high school with one of the black guys that didn't make the top 18. They had similar grades and went to the same exact school. How else would that black guy done worse than the white guy unless the black guy didn't study/pay attention as much?

 

[Shogun]

No, it hasn't. The core idea that intelligence is more influenced by INHERITANCE than ENVIRONMENT is rock-solid. The "debunking" of the Bell Curve is hysterical politics, not sound science.

Stalking the Wild Taboo - WSJ Statement on The Bell Curve

no, it's really not. I'd love to see a source that is a lot less laughable than what you just posted. If you know of someone who solved the nature vs nurture debate i'd love to know his name.

This list of academics is laughable?

The following professors -- all experts in intelligence and allied fields -- have signed this statement:

Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin
Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.
Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
Hans Eysenck, University of London
Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware
Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University
Richard J.Haier, University of Callifornia at Irvine
Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin
David Lubinski, Iowa State University
David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia
Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University
David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley
Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa
Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University
James C. Sharf, George Washington University
Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J.
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.
Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin

We might add James Watson to the list, but of course, once the heat was turned up, he got out of the race-reality kitchen.

Are you sure you're not just ICKED OUT by the idea of inherited differences in intelligence? If so, I get it. But it's still reality.

I've posted my thoughts on it, joyce. I do not rule out a finite statistical reality. However, the point I responded to was your assumptions that intelligence is more influenced by INHERITANCE than ENVIRONMENT is rock-solid. , which, isn't the case by a long shot. Hell, Watson made a case for inherent racial differences but he didn't assume Intelligence was the sole product of nature. This is why it's pretty farcical when you whip out a handful of names as if the same can't be done for any number of asinine OPINIONS. Hell, how many names do you think I can find from legitimate scientists which insist that the Earth is only 6k years old? Should it impress me that such a list is convincing to a dogma junkie christian? Likewise, is it REALLY impressive when someone with a habitual reputation for race issues such as yourself pops out a handful of names who, lets face it, are anchored by the very man who balked? Again, I don't rule out the reality of a difference in racial characteristics.. but let's not pretend the nature v nurture conundrum has been solves just because you can name drop a few people out of, literally, thousands who do not agree.

 

[William Joyce]

I'd be surprised if there were a single scientist who thought the Earth was 6 thousand years old, though I am aware of the whole "creation science" crock of shit, which I'm sure you'll agree isn't science by definition because it STARTS with a conclusion then tries to shore that up with snippets here and there.

What I see in the whole race-denial movement (which yes, does have scientists working for it) is the same thing: a quasi-religious idea -- the equality of all humans and/or human groups, which is taken as the given -- and then collections of snippets here and there to back it up. And like "creation science", it's overtly political: if nature beats nurture, then Hitler was right, or Hitler's right around the corner, etc. Ain't no way Steven Jay Gould wants that any more than Billy Graham wants the Big Bang.

Not even the Bell Curve dudes denied that environment was a factor. They just argued that nature was a bigger factor. If we need to quantify that to advance the argument, OK -- 51 percent? 90 percent? I just don't know... But my gut says it's like 75-80 percent. But I think that ultimately, because of the very heavy overlay of politics, this issue isn't likely to be debated on the facts.

An essay on why this whole deal is so hard to talk about:

Occidental Observer

 

[mattskramer]

No, it hasn't. The core idea that intelligence is more influenced by INHERITANCE than ENVIRONMENT is rock-solid. The "debunking" of the Bell Curve is hysterical politics, not sound science.

Stalking the Wild Taboo - WSJ Statement on The Bell Curve

no, it's really not. I'd love to see a source that is a lot less laughable than what you just posted. If you know of someone who solved the nature vs nurture debate i'd love to know his name.

This list of academics is laughable?

The following professors -- all experts in intelligence and allied fields -- have signed this statement:

Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin
Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.
Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
Hans Eysenck, University of London
Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware
Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University
Richard J.Haier, University of Callifornia at Irvine
Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin
David Lubinski, Iowa State University
David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia
Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University
David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley
Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa
Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University
James C. Sharf, George Washington University
Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J.
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.
Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin

We might add James Watson to the list, but of course, once the heat was turned up, he got out of the race-reality kitchen.

Are you sure you're not just ICKED OUT by the idea of inherited differences in intelligence? If so, I get it. But it's still reality.

I guess that concensus makes reality. What is your position on global warming?

In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations." The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."

 

[Shogun]

I'd be surprised if there were a single scientist who thought the Earth was 6 thousand years old, though I am aware of the whole "creation science" crock of shit, which I'm sure you'll agree isn't science by definition because it STARTS with a conclusion then tries to shore that up with snippets here and there.

What I see in the whole race-denial movement (which yes, does have scientists working for it) is the same thing: a quasi-religious idea -- the equality of all humans and/or human groups, which is taken as the given -- and then collections of snippets here and there to back it up. And like "creation science", it's overtly political: if nature beats nurture, then Hitler was right, or Hitler's right around the corner, etc. Ain't no way Steven Jay Gould wants that any more than Billy Graham wants the Big Bang.

Not even the Bell Curve dudes denied that environment was a factor. They just argued that nature was a bigger factor. If we need to quantify that to advance the argument, OK -- 51 percent? 90 percent? I just don't know... But my gut says it's like 75-80 percent. But I think that ultimately, because of the very heavy overlay of politics, this issue isn't likely to be debated on the facts.

An essay on why this whole deal is so hard to talk about:

Occidental Observer

There are a lot of creation believing scientists, dude. I can probably find a list longer than yours. And no, I don't agree with it even though, similarly, the scientific method requires leaving the door open in the event of evidence. Likewise, while there may be a finite reality to the range of comparative intelligence that you suggest it's simply not true that we've been able to determine the greater influence between nature and nurture. That really was my point in this thread.

And, I agree.. this would not be the first time in scientific debate where social mores dominate evidence. I readily accept that it may very well be the case that the full spectrum of comparative intelligence illustrates what your gut tells you. But, thats not any kind of scientific standard. And, individually, I don't think such observations, truth or not, can be applied by stereotype alone. I'm sure you've seen women that could kick your ass. That doesn't mean most women are as strong as your male self.. But, it does illustrate that despite a possible finite statistic truth there will be variations that do not follow the pattern and should not be limited by generalization. This, I think, is why PC rebuttals are given by less articulate people who would rather swim with the school to avoid the topic than defend the idea of individual equality. Even if Hitler was correct about races it is still no excuse to stratify humanity.

 

[William Joyce]

Don't have a position on global warming. But I see it's also pretty laden with politics: if you don't believe in it, you're a greedy, polluting jerk Republican. If you do, you're a flaky pot-smoking hippie loser whose never held a real job. See how "facts" might get caught in there?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece

To me, Frank Ricci and his white colleagues having a wrench chucked into their lives on the ground that "white racism" is what held back the black firefighters is a more pressing issue.

 

[manifold]

 

[Shogun]

stop beating around the bush, mani. If you have something to say then say it.

 

[manifold]

What I just posted is worth a thousand words, or so I've heard.

 

[Shogun]

in a trite sort of way, i guess. It conveys the spine of a jellyfish though.

 

[William Joyce]

Even if Hitler was correct about races it is still no excuse to stratify humanity.

To me, it depends on what's entailed in "stratify": mow down anyone with an IQ lower than 70 in a hail of gunfire, no. Tailor education spending to the realization that you can't raise a 70 IQ past 80, yes.

Or... take the firefighter test results as they come in.

I do think public policy can and should be informed by the reality of racial differences. Mostly because public policy isn't designed for individuals -- i.e., the woman who's taller than most men -- it's designed to account for generalities. A civilized society should aim for a base of generalities with room for exceptions, in my view. Peter Brimelow likes to call our present state of society "Hitler's revenge," as in, we freaked out so much about stratifying humanity that we went way too far in the other direction. We're now a Harrison Bergeron society. Two evil extremes, as mattskramer might say.

 

[Shogun]

I disagree strongly. We don't, as a culture, hinder the potential of women in math professions just because males are, generally, better at spacial recognition. Neither should we limit an entire demographic just because the majority of such may not excel as well as the majority of a different domogrpahic.

Tell me, Joyce. Assuming that whites ARE generally more intelligent than blacks are you willing to tell me that there are no blacks smarter than you? If not, why should they be culturally inhibited when they have more intellectual potential than you? In actuality, public policy that values individual equality does protect the individual from generalized policy. And thats the way it should be. I disagree with affirmative action and the fireman's situation. But, having a cultural excuse to purge potentially qualified blacks from roles based on a generalize stereotype is far worse and, truthfully, is something you probably won't want to support after whites lose their majority in the US.

 

[mattskramer]

Don't have a position on global warming. But I see it's also pretty laden with politics: if you don't believe in it, you're a greedy, polluting jerk Republican. If you do, you're a flaky pot-smoking hippie loser whose never held a real job. See how "facts" might get caught in there?

To me, Frank Ricci and his white colleagues having a wrench chucked into their lives on the ground that "white racism" is what held back the black firefighters is a more pressing issue.

I still contend that if all things had been practically equal throughout history, then there would have been practically no differences in IQ between Blacks and Whites. Yet, I think that we can agree on something with respect to the race issue. If the promotion test is valid (if those firefighters with higher scores are more likely to be better at the job to which they are being promoted than are those who score lower) then the test and test results should be kept. Whites have given Blacks enough time to "catch up". It is time to end reverse discrimination and end preferential treatment. Let the chips fall where they may.

For example, consider the following hypothetical scenario: A community has 800 Blacks and 200 Whites. 8 Blacks and 2 Whites take a test. If the highest scoring Black scores below the lowest scoring White, then so be it. The Whites get the job.

 

[mattskramer]

I disagree strongly. We don't, as a culture, hinder the potential of women in math professions just because males are, generally, better at spacial recognition. Neither should we limit an entire demographic just because the majority of such may not excel as well as the majority of a different domogrpahic.

Tell me, Joyce. Assuming that whites ARE generally more intelligent than blacks are you willing to tell me that there are no blacks smarter than you? If not, why should they be culturally inhibited when they have more intellectual potential than you? In actuality, public policy that values individual equality does protect the individual from generalized policy. And thats the way it should be. I disagree with affirmative action and the fireman's situation. But, having a cultural excuse to purge potentially qualified blacks from roles based on a generalize stereotype is far worse and, truthfully, is something you probably won't want to support after whites lose their majority in the US.

Good point. I agree. I think that I sort of said the same thing in post 93 - but rather poorly.

 

[manifold]

What's the matter with you Ravs? Scratch your bumper trying to parallel park again?

 

[Shogun]

y'all

 

[William Joyce]

I disagree strongly. We don't, as a culture, hinder the potential of women in math professions just because males are, generally, better at spacial recognition. Neither should we limit an entire demographic just because the majority of such may not excel as well as the majority of a different domogrpahic.

But this is nowhere NEAR where we are currently. A woman with tremendous math ability would find herself rocketing to the top. Shit, she'd be a Disney movie before long. The problem comes when we set up a math genius program that FORCES 51 percent of its participants to be female. THAT is far closer to what we're doing, at least racially. That hinders the truer potential of the men closed out of that program.

Tell me, Joyce. Assuming that whites ARE generally more intelligent than blacks are you willing to tell me that there are no blacks smarter than you?

You know I've never said that. 15 percent of blacks are smarter than the average white, so sure, a black smarter than a white is statistically inescapable. I don't know what my own IQ is, but I'm crafting my arguments without any personal assumption about myself. My arguments stand even with Gomer Pyle and Thomas Sowell.

having a cultural excuse to purge potentially qualified blacks from roles based on a generalize stereotype is far worse and, truthfully, is something you probably won't want to support after whites lose their majority in the US.

Over-generalization has costs, just as under-generalization has costs. I fully admit that. (Try getting an egalitarian to admit that their system has any costs.) But what we're doing now is paying an incredibly high price for massive under-generalization (of different groups). What motivates me, of course, is that WHITES are paying this price, by and large (though note that according to the National Policy Institute, Asians are hurt most by affirmative action, and Hispanics benefit most.)

I also do not believe for a second that America is being denied the great skills of blacks in any endeavor, when they present themselves. Mrs. Joyce is watching a tribute to Michael Jackson narrated by Charles Gibson, for goodness' sake. If there is some great black firefighter out there in Connecticut, well, homeboy's making it pretty damn hard for us to find him by flunking the firefighter test.

After the Bakke case, the media did all these little specials on the black doctor who got in in his place. But they ignored the fact that years later, he had so many medical screw-ups that they pulled his license. Alan Bakke went on to be a modestly successful, non-screwing-up medical doctor.

 

[William Joyce]

For example, consider the following hypothetical scenario: A community has 800 Blacks and 200 Whites. 8 Blacks and 2 Whites take a test. If the highest scoring Black scores below the lowest scoring White, then so be it. The Whites get the job.

Agreed.

But check out Justice Alito's eye-popping concurrence, in which he gives a journalistic rundown of all that was going down in New Haven at the insistence of one Boise Kimber, who makes Al Sharpton look like a piker. That stuff like this happens in America -- and doesn't make the New York Times -- tells you something. Politically, it's going to be hard. Racial lobbies don't care about "logical" or "fair", they care about getting theirs, now.

 

[JBeukema]

Wait, so Shogun recognizes sexual differences in average mental abilities and potential, but when the exact same science points to racial differences, he turns into a little PC bitch?

 

[Shogun]

Wait, so Shogun recognizes sexual differences in average mental abilities and potential, but when the exact same science points to racial differences, he turns into a little PC bitch?

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I don't deny the possibility of a statistical finite truth to race based intelligence differences but, for the sake of individual who do not fall into the generalization, I am not willing to restrict based on such concepts any more than support a law banning women from math and construction just because, statistically, men are generally better at either.