Disaster of the delusion that all children are the same: blaming the teachers

[barbos]

Some genes, and why would they be evenly distributed?

What genes are they? Without that knowledge we can't say anything about them.

I told you already - some genes.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here's what I love. The (generally) conservative folk who tell you that schools need to be run like a business runs -- that student performance is the 'product' and that 'productivity' involves, among other things, larger class sizes (because a competent teacher should be able to generate more product -- I've heard this argument) -- all hold to the G.O.P. mantra that government regulation is a major roadblock to business success. Yet they see nothing wrong with regulating education to death and installing layer after layer of mind-boggling paperwork and documentation. I'm retired from public ed, thank Ker-RIST, but I talk to people who are still in the system and their enthusiasm and dedication are being worn down by the crazy excesses of the reform movement (which, all the way back to A Nation at Risk, was based on ludicrous abuse of stats. Don't get me started.)

Good Point and something no one speaks enough about.

I don't know for sure about black academic accomplishment in Britain, but you may need to be skeptical. The stories that are popularly reported are the stories that appeal to popular prejudices, and the popular prejudice of the UK (as in the USA) is that all races have equal intelligence. Richard Lynn (in his book The Global Bell Curve) compiled 22 intelligence testing studies of blacks in Britain, among all age groups (mostly children), and together they have a median IQ of 86. There is one study that reports an IQ of 104 (with N=9). That is the kind of study more likely to be popularly reported. The educational attainment of blacks in Britain is similarly reported to be lacking. At age 14, only 51% of black students pass the standardized science test, compared to 70% of whites and 82% of Chinese. Similar gaps exist for English and math.

It isn't "popularly reported" and that isn't even what the UK data suggests. I doubt that's even the "popular prejudice". Of course one should be skeptical, not least of anything from Lynn, Rushton et al.

As has been pointed out time and time again. I appreciated your pointing it out again. Perhaps it will finally get through.

It isn't "popularly reported" and that isn't even what the UK data suggests. I doubt that's even the "popular prejudice". Of course one should be skeptical, not least of anything from Lynn, Rushton et al.

Interesting how fast the topic we t from "IQ is genetic" to "blacks have lower IQ"....

Well it does appear that is what the core belief behind these threads is, therefore the mantra "blacks are genetically inferior intellectually" will most likely always come up.

 

[untermensche]

What genes are they? Without that knowledge we can't say anything about them.

I told you already - some genes.

Yes I know. You have already told me nothing.

To make any claims about genes requires knowing specifically which genes you are talking about.

If the genes that create "intelligence" are unknown then we can't say where and how they are distributed.

 

[arkirk]

I told you already - some genes.

Yes I know. You have already told me nothing.

To make any claims about genes requires knowing specifically which genes you are talking about.

If the genes that create "intelligence" are unknown then we can't say where and how they are distributed.

There also remains the problem of defining what we mean by "intelligence." To most people concerned with this, it means, "thinks logically like me."

 

[untermensche]

Yes I know. You have already told me nothing.

To make any claims about genes requires knowing specifically which genes you are talking about.

If the genes that create "intelligence" are unknown then we can't say where and how they are distributed.

There also remains the problem of defining what we mean by "intelligence." To most people concerned with this, it means, "thinks logically like me."

Yes, talk of genes is cheap.

Actually defining which genes you are talking about is something nobody can do.

 

[ksen]

Some genes, and why would they be evenly distributed?

What genes are they? Without that knowledge we can't say anything about them.

Actually, without that knowledge we can say whatever we want and who's going to prove us wrong?

 

[ApostateAbe]

There also remains the problem of defining what we mean by "intelligence." To most people concerned with this, it means, "thinks logically like me."

Yes, talk of genes is cheap.

Actually defining which genes you are talking about is something nobody can do.

Genetic heritability studies existed long before anyone knew DNA existed. Those studies had very strong arguments at the time, and they proved correct. Such is the conclusion of the strong heritability of IQ today. That isn't to say that the identification of genes would not contribute to the conclusion, but, as intelligence is a vastly polygenic trait with thousands of genes, it will require a survey of the genes and IQ of a hundred thousand people before those genes are identified. I expect it won't take long, and we need to be prepared. We don't need the scientific conclusion to be absolutely certain before accepting its very high probability.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, talk of genes is cheap.

Actually defining which genes you are talking about is something nobody can do.

Genetic heritability studies existed long before anyone knew DNA existed. Those studies had very strong arguments at the time, and they proved correct. Such is the conclusion of the strong heritability of IQ today. That isn't to say that the identification of genes would not contribute to the conclusion, but, as intelligence is a vastly polygenic trait with thousands of genes, it will require a survey of the genes and IQ of a hundred thousand people before those genes are identified. I expect it won't take long, and we need to be prepared. We don't need the scientific conclusion to be absolutely certain before accepting its very high probability.

When claims are made about the distribution of genes, and the genes are unknown, those claims are nonsense.

And of course IQ and intelligence are two completely different things.

One is a human construct that has no real existence, and the other is very real.

 

[ApostateAbe]

You would have accused Gregor Mendel of fraud, or what? Some did.

 

[untermensche]

You would have accused Gregor Mendel of fraud, or what? Some did.

Mendel saw with his eyes the traits he investigated.

 

[Trausti]

And of course IQ and intelligence are two completely different things.

One is a human construct that has no real existence, and the other is very real.

Huh? So, in your estimation, there would be no difference between a group with a mean IQ of 100 and a group with a mean IQ of 85? Really?

 

[ApostateAbe]

You would have accused Gregor Mendel of fraud, or what? Some did.

Mendel saw with his eyes the traits he investigated.

Not for the recessive traits in heterozygotes. In Mendel's day, there was plenty of doubt about Mendel's theory, in large part because genes could not be identified. The evidence was statistical. Many people distrust statistics, especially among those who don't understand it, often for good reason, like Twain said.

 

[Trausti]

There also remains the problem of defining what we mean by "intelligence." To most people concerned with this, it means, "thinks logically like me."

Yes, talk of genes is cheap.

Actually defining which genes you are talking about is something nobody can do.

This demur seems silly. Our traits are the results of gene expression. A large component of intelligence is heritable. Hence, genes for intelligence are being passed on from parent to child. Just because the exact genes have not yet been identified (the human genome has only bee sequenced since 2000 after all) does not mean the heritable intelligence traits exhibited are not the result of gene expression.

When did this become a Creationist board?

 

[untermensche]

And of course IQ and intelligence are two completely different things.

One is a human construct that has no real existence, and the other is very real.

Huh? So, in your estimation, there would be no difference between a group with a mean IQ of 100 and a group with a mean IQ of 85? Really?

Suppose I gave you a random mixture of both groups.

What real world task would prove which was which?

Would all the 100's be better mechanics?

Would they all be better speakers?

Would they all have a larger vocabulary?

What besides a crafted and convoluted test would tell you which was which?

 

[untermensche]

Yes, talk of genes is cheap.

Actually defining which genes you are talking about is something nobody can do.

This demur seems silly. Our traits are the results of gene expression. A large component of intelligence is heritable. Hence, genes for intelligence are being passed on from parent to child. Just because the exact genes have not yet been identified (the human genome has only bee sequenced since 2000 after all) does not mean the heritable intelligence traits exhibited are not the result of gene expression.

When did this become a Creationist board?

Where exactly do you read a doubt that what we call intelligence has a genetic component?

What I doubt is that anybody knows which genes do it and how much of intelligence is the result of genes and how much is the result of life experience.

And if we don't know the specific genes that account for intelligence we don't have a clue how those genes are distributed.

 

[untermensche]

Mendel saw with his eyes the traits he investigated.

Not for the recessive traits in heterozygotes. In Mendel's day, there was plenty of doubt about Mendel's theory, in large part because genes could not be identified. The evidence was statistical. Many people distrust statistics, especially among those who don't understand it, often for good reason, like Twain said.

Of course he saw those recessive traits. That is how he knew they existed.

He just didn't always see them when he expected to. That is how the concept of recessive was invented.

 

[zorq]

Untermensche,

Can you admit to yourself that genetics is a factor in a person's academic potential?
Can you recognize that academic achievement in an individual is an indicator of their underlying academic potential?
Can you recognize that the average academic achievement of adults in Beverly Hills is greater than the average academic achievement of people who live in Compton? (Both are notorious neighborhoods of Los Angeles so that I'm understood.)

Then it follows that we have clear indicators that the genetics that factor into the academic potential of students is not evenly distributed throughout all school districts.

We don't need to know anything about the individual genes that actually determine the academic potential of humans to see the indicators of this uneven distribution.

 

[ksen]

Yes, talk of genes is cheap.

Actually defining which genes you are talking about is something nobody can do.

This demur seems silly. Our traits are the results of gene expression. A large component of intelligence is heritable. Hence, genes for intelligence are being passed on from parent to child. Just because the exact genes have not yet been identified (the human genome has only bee sequenced since 2000 after all) does not mean the heritable intelligence traits exhibited are not the result of gene expression.

When did this become a Creationist board?

when did it become stormfront?

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche,

Can you admit to yourself that genetics is a factor in a person's academic potential?

All potentials are ultimately genetic potentials.

But a genetic potential may require very specific external factors to be fully realized.

Like not living in a society where your race is in the minority with a hostile majority race.

Can you recognize that academic achievement in an individual is an indicator of their underlying academic potential?

But the lack of academic achievement is not evidence of any kind that genes are involved.

Can you recognize that the average academic achievement of adults in Beverly Hills is greater than the average academic achievement of people who live in Compton? (Both are notorious neighborhoods of Los Angeles so that I'm understood.)

Two completely different cultures and histories.

Not at all evidence that genes have anything to do with it.

 

[barbos]

I told you already - some genes.

Yes I know. You have already told me nothing.

To make any claims about genes requires knowing specifically which genes you are talking about.

If the genes that create "intelligence" are unknown then we can't say where and how they are distributed.

We can say they exist even if we don't know which and where they are.