White men still dominating science posts

[Adam]

I repeat: results have been shown. Not one link to racism as a cause has been shown. Results have been shown, then racism has been mentioned, but no link between the two has been shown. I can't make it any simpler for you at this time.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
I repeat: results have been shown. Not one link to racism as a cause has been shown. Results have been shown, then racism has been mentioned, but no link between the two has been shown. I can't make it any simpler for you at this time.

Adam, what you are saying still doesn't refute the multiple studies which show that white people have it easier than everyone else in a multitude of areas, including hiring practices.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

Cecil Adams writes:

(Bush's SAT are) 640 on both verbal and math, good enough for 88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now

Then I write:

In a world where SAT and IQ were equivalent, these scores would give Bush an IQ near 115. However, his C average gives us reason to doubt it's this high. 115 is probably the upper limit.

But elsewhere Charles Murray, "IQ expert" and author of The Bell Curve Estimates Bush with an IQ of 125. Linda Gottfredson concurs:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040114-074349-3947r.htm

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International: "I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile."


--Mark

Considering Bush's social status, he would have almost certainly received intensive tutoring directed toward performance on the test. This was at a time when "Princeton Review" was unheard of. This would have given him an enormous competitive advantage compared to those untutored students. My buddy who ran a PR franchise assures me that bumping a student from 1000-1250 is fairly common. If he had the same preparation as the typical student, he probably would have scored 100-250 points lower. This would imply that Bush's IQ is probably significantly lower than 125. There is also the distinct possibility, considering his dissolute character and his manifest lack of intelligence, that someone took the test for him.

Another thing. How did he get into Yale with just a 1280 on his SAT's? I imagine that their standards are as tough as Princeton's. Princeton only accepted my lowly 1420 because I had good grades from a good high school.

Njorl

 

[Nachtwolf]

By Zero
Adam, what you are saying still doesn't refute the multiple studies which show that white people have it easier than everyone else in a multitude of areas, including hiring practices.

Um, whites are 10-15 IQ points smarter than your so-called "everyone else." Why would you expect "everyone else" to do as well as whites?

Of course, the forgotten ethnic groups which aren't included in your "everyone else" - East Asians & Ashkenazi Jews - are smarter than whites by about 5 and 10 IQ points respectively. Whites sure as hell aren't favored over these groups. If whites were given an unfair break, then we wouldn't see charts like this one, compiled by Thomas Sowell (a black man, incidentally) :

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Race

In his book Ethnic America, Dr. Thomas Sowell set up a point-scale index that graphed economic success in terms comparable to IQ by norming the national income average as 100 points:

Points - Ethnicity
172 - Jewish
132 - Japanese
115 - Polish
112 - Chinese & Italian
107 - Anglo Saxon & German
103 - Irish
100 - U.S. Avg.
99 - Filipino
94 - West Indian
76 - Mexican
63 - Puerto Rican
62 - Black
60 - Native American

People who think the failure of low-IQ minority groups can be explained by a racist conspiracy which benefits whites at the expense of everyone else are woefully ignorant.

By Adam
Not one link to racism as a cause has been shown. Results have been shown, then racism has been mentioned, but no link between the two has been shown.

Exactly. The incredible success of East Asians and Jews is routinely ignored, while Blacks, Native Americans, Latinos, and the other darlings of the liberal media fail.

Why?

"Because of the evil white people, and don't ask questions, you evil racist!"

So whites rush about in a tizzy of apoplectic anti-racism and institute all kinds of programs and charities and policies at their own expense to help out the failing minorities.

Billions of dollars later, they have diddly to show for it.

Eugenists can only pretend to be surprised.

*Pretends to be surprised*

By Njorl
he had the same preparation as the typical student, he probably would have scored 100-250 points lower.

Njorl, don't you think Murray & Gottfredson know how to do their jobs? Why do you immediately assume that Bush's scores must be inflated 250 points? Can the SAT-testees really be tutored to increase their scores by up to 250 points? Do you have any data to show that it can? (Here's a hint - the information at my disposal suggests that gains like you describe are outlandish, Njorl).

Even if the scores are inflated, his IQ is still very likely better than average. Think of it this way: Of course Bush is dumb - it's just that everybody else is that much dumber.


--Mark

 

[Zero]

You too are missing the point...IQ tests aren't teh be-all of intelligence, especially since they tend to be skewed by economic and cultural factors in the first place. For instance, we know that certain countries weed out the college-bound students early, and send everyone else to trade schools. When they do that, they eliminate those likely to score low on IQ and other tests from the testing group.

Plus, like I said, there are studies in America that show that whites are given unfair advatages. For instance, one study showed that job resumes sent out with "black-sounding" names and great resumes were less likely to get call-backs for jobs than resumes sent to the the same employers with more "white-sounding" names, even if the resume included a criminal record. There was another study that showed that if a black person and a white person went to the same doctor with the same ailment, the black patient received poorer treatment than the white patient.

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Zero
You too are missing the point...IQ tests aren't teh be-all of intelligence, especially since they tend to be skewed by economic and cultural factors in the first place. For instance, we know that certain countries weed out the college-bound students early, and send everyone else to trade schools. When they do that, they eliminate those likely to score low on IQ and other tests from the testing group.

Plus, like I said, there are studies in America that show that whites are given unfair advatages. For instance, one study showed that job resumes sent out with "black-sounding" names and great resumes were less likely to get call-backs for jobs than resumes sent to the the same employers with more "white-sounding" names, even if the resume included a criminal record. There was another study that showed that if a black person and a white person went to the same doctor with the same ailment, the black patient received poorer treatment than the white patient.

Your point about the discrepancy in medical treatments between blacks and whites is becoming embarassingly apparant. Here is one of many good studies. http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html

The study of 803 men hospitalized at four Veterans Affairs hospitals also found that black patients are less likely than whites to receive a diagnostic imaging test that is a crucial first step in determining whether an individual is a candidate for the surgical procedure called carotid endarterectomy.

"We can rule out financial barriers as an explanation for our study's findings because patients in the VA system have equal financial access," says Eugene Oddone, M.D., director of the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, VA Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and chief/division of general internal medicine, Duke University Medical Center. Oddone was the lead researcher in the study.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by adrenaline
Your point about the discrepancy in medical treatments between blacks and whites is becoming embarassingly apparant. Here is one of many good studies. http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html

Hmmmm...it makes me wonder why so many people think it is important to cling to the racial and racist stereotypes so fiercely that they are willing to ignore data, and in fact manufacture data if needed...I am curious if THAT has a genetic component as well?

 

[hitssquad]

The g factor and self-health-care incompetency

Originally posted by adrenaline
Your point about the discrepancy in medical treatments between blacks and whites is becoming embarassingly apparant. Here is one of many good studies. http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html

Actually, what Zero wrote was.

--
there are studies in America that show that whites are given unfair advatages... [A] study that showed that if a black person and a white person went to the same doctor with the same ailment, the black patient received poorer treatment than the white patient.
--
http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html


Ability to work with a doctor might be regarded as a part of the g nexus. The g nexus predicts overall socio-economic competency relative to level of g.

--
Chapter 14
The g Nexus

The g factor derives its broad significance from the fact that it is causally related to many real-life conditions, both personal and social. These relationships form a complex correlational network, or nexus, in which g is a major node.
--
The g Factor. p544.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874




If blacks have lower IQs than whites, they might be expected to not be able to work as effectively with medical institutions as whites would. The study's popular write-up linked-to doesn't imply this is not the case. In fact, the popular write-up of the article explicitly states that it may indeed be the case:


--
"There may be a racial difference in the way treatment options are communicated to patients by their physician. That may lead to differences in a patient's understanding of what types of treatments are available," explains Oddone. "This may account for previous studies that found that African Americans tend to be less willing to undergo invasive procedures for preventing stroke."
--
http://www.medicine-news.com/articles/abstracts/papers/strokesavingsurgery.html


Competency in communication, and competency in instances of complex decision-making, are -- as noted by Arthur R. Jensen in his book the g Factor -- considered key areas of expression of the g factor. Data indicating relatively low functionality in interaction with institutions is precisely what we might expect from a population characterized by a relatively low level of g.

We also can observe the relative incompetency of blacks in other health-related areas of complex decision making, such as diet, exercise, drug-use, sundry types of hygiene, self-medication, and folk-remedies. These incompetencies would concur with possible incompetencies in utilization of health services.




This popular write-up of this study also says there happens to be, in the particular case of this particular ailment, "a belief of many physicians that African Americans tend to have more plaque in their brain arteries. Physicians are generally less likely to recommend patients with blockages in the upper brain for carotid endarterectomy because it is much riskier for those patients." Therefore, there is no need to assume systematic discrimination to account for the results reported by the study.




Edit: added The g Factor quote


-Chris

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Zero
Adam, what you are saying still doesn't refute the multiple studies which show that white people have it easier than everyone else in a multitude of areas, including hiring practices.

I know I've got it easier than kids in Vietnam who have to dodge old landmines every morning when they step outside (although in this case, we know the cause is a dumb-arse war). I can safely say that I have attained more years of formal education than the majority of Australians. Saying this gives absolutely no indication of the causes though, unless stated. You must realize there is a difference between cause and effect. There is a difference between accepting that one group has, or may have, better results in society, and assuming the cause of that is racism. I have not seen one link between the results listed and racism, apart from baseless assumptions. Why do people assume racism is the cause when average income for asian-descended families is higher than average income from african-descended families, for example?

 

[adrenaline]

The study proved Zero's point very well.

Also, you quoted the study out of context.

The study clearly states that a simple study such as ordering a carotid ultrasound or angiography, (standard of care in medical practice for evalulating a TIA,) was not ordered as it should in blacks who visit the same medical provider (the VA) as a white. Thus, a black vs. a white who sees a doctor for TIA's is not getting the standard of care as he should and access to the medical treatment facility is not in issue in the VA system that would account for differences in other settings.

Oddone adds that the clinical differences do not explain why the African-American patients in the study were also less likely to receive carotid ultrasound or carotid angiography -- two important imaging tests to determine whether a patient has substantial plaque obstructions in the carotid artery, making him or her a candidate for carotid endarterectomy. The study found that 67 percent of the blacks in the study received carotid imaging, compared to 79 percent of whites

This study disproves any differences in anatomy that would make blacks less of a candidate for carotid endarterectomies.

This latest study also challenges claims of earlier research that found African Americans generally tend to have more blockages in blood vessels in the brain in addition to the carotid artery, which has been shown to increase the risk of carotid endarterectomy.

.

Besides, this still would not be a reason to forgoe a test (especially one as noninvasive as a carotid ultrasound) that would evaluate a patient's surgical candidacy, black or white.

An equivalent bias and prejudice would be the following...
Diabetics usually have a higher chance of inoperable three vessel coronary disease versus a nondiabetic...does that mean we should not order cardiac catherizations when he has unstable angina (the cardiac equivalent of TIAs) even though a higher percentage of diabetics cannot get angioplasties or bypass surgeries and thus would be undergoing a invasive test , that is in itself, wrought with hazards? How silly..., but then so is not ordering a test in a black man because he may have a higher chance of inoperable or more problematic carotid arthresclerosis. (which is erroneous premise to begin with.)

Interesting that this was done in the South. Interesting that as an internist, I do 90 percent of the admissions for TIAs before they get to a neurologist, ordering a carotid ultrasound was never based on what race they were, it was based on clinical presentation as it should be.( Actually, I have never heard of this mythological differences in black vs. white anatomy of intracranial plaques in my 11 years of working up TIAs and it is not a standard belief in this institution at Medical College of Georgia)


The whole point of the article was that clinical differences did not explain why a simple test was not ordered as it should in blacks as often as whites. it wasn't access to medical care. The article did not offer the obvious explanation because it can't prove it, but the message is clear that there is a bias that exists. wether it's based on prejudice and discrimination or other confounding social variables , it doesn't matter, the bias is there and the blacks, when all things are equal, are getting less quality medical care.

 

[adrenaline]

Here is another study with something very simple. Influenza vaccines to high risk patients and access to care and socioeconomic differences did not account once again for the disparency. Can't say it's innate prejudice, but then what is? (Rates of COPD, Asthma etc. that put people at high risk are equal or higher in blacks.) I can tell you in clinical practice, the physician usually recommends the vaccine during a office visit for other routine matters,

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465222

The results of this study provide 3 important additions to current knowledge about racial/ethnic inequalities in influenza vaccination. First, among patients with diabetes or chronic heart conditions and among those with 2 or more high-risk conditions, Whites appear more likely to be vaccinated than Blacks. Second, racial/ethnic differences in vaccination appear to be independent of gender, socioeconomic status, and access to health care. Finally, regardless of race/ethnicity, patients aged 64 years or younger seem less likely to be vaccinated than those aged 65 years or older.

Our results concur with the findings of earlier studies that have documented racial/ethnic differences in influenza vaccination in the United States[11-14,21,22] and suggest that although influenza vaccination coverage has improved over time, racial/ethnic differences have remained unchanged. In addition, our findings contradict the prevailing assumption that differences in socioeconomic status and access to health care between Whites and Blacks[23] are responsible for racial/ethnic differences in influenza vaccination..

the whole point is, even the bastion of impartiallity, which medical doctors like to think of themselves (render quality care to everyone that entrusts their care in your hands) is wrought with innate biases, wether they are racially motivated or not, it exists.

 

[Adam]

I don't know why this is so difficult for some of you to understand. Why must you cling so tenaciously to your misconceptions?

A survey/study showing results is not an investigation into causes. I am not at all disputing any of the results. I am questioning why you leap to the "racism" conclusion for the cause without reason.

Possible causes for inclusion/exclusion:

• Lack of insurance.
• Inadequate insurance.
• Hostile behaviour toward staff.
• Surveyors edliberately selecting places which can not achieve the admission at the time in question. (Surveyors have, by the way, been known to select samples which will slant findings toward what they hope to demonstrate.)
• Lack of demonstratable symptoms.
• Insufficient symptoms to warrant certain procedures/treatments.

There could be a million other causes. In everything supplied in this thread, not one link between the results and any cause has been established.

In short, and very simply:

• Results have been shown, and I do not dispute them.
• No cause has been shown.
• That the cause is racism remains an assumption until proven.

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Adam
I don't know why this is so difficult for some of you to understand. Why must you cling so tenaciously to your misconceptions?

A survey/study showing results is not an investigation into causes. I am not at all disputing any of the results. I am questioning why you leap to the "racism" conclusion for the cause without reason.

Possible causes for inclusion/exclusion:

• Lack of insurance.
• Inadequate insurance.
• Hostile behaviour toward staff.
• Surveyors edliberately selecting places which can not achieve the admission at the time in question. (Surveyors have, by the way, been known to select samples which will slant findings toward what they hope to demonstrate.)
• Lack of demonstratable symptoms.
• Insufficient symptoms to warrant certain procedures/treatments.

There could be a million other causes. In everything supplied in this thread, not one link between the results and any cause has been established.

In short, and very simply:

• Results have been shown, and I do not dispute them.
• No cause has been shown.
• That the cause is racism remains an assumption until proven.

I agree with you Adam. However, these studies took into account access, insurance etc and many confounding social variables that do play a role in other areas of discrepancy such as cancer rates and mortality which are related to that and not bias on the medical establishment's part.

However, I chose the TIA and flu vaccines because of their simplicity. A TIA, no matter how mild the symptoms...from full blown paralysis of one side of the body for 15 minutes or slight slurring of speech for a few seconds, warrant the same workup regardless of severity of symptoms. Thus, all the other variables you mentioned, valid in other medical diseases (cancer, etc.) really is less of an issue ( you mentioned lack of demonstrable symptoms, isufficient symptoms...) 90 percent of TIAs that make it to the doctor has already resolved so a doctor orders the test by pure clinical history. That is the beauty of choosing this particular disease.

As you stated, we can't prove it's prejudicial, but the fact is, there is unequal treatment between blacks and whites when most of the variables are controlled for and a bias clearly exists. The medical establishment needs to push forward on why and correct this bias, but if it is socially based, it will never correct itself.

 

[hitssquad]

Why test if surgery has already been ruled out

Originally posted by adrenaline
this still would not be a reason to forgoe a test (especially one as noninvasive as a carotid ultrasound) that would evaluate a patient's surgical candidacy, black or white.

The popular write-up listed two reasons -- that don't have to do with systematic quality-of-care discrimination along racial lines -- why blacks might not be considered at the same rate as whites for carotid endarterectomies. The first reason had to do with doctor-patient interaction. The present author noted that 1. this is an area where the IQ of the patient can correlate positively in positive outcome; and 2. blacks have been found in general to have lower IQs. The second reason had to do with a perception among doctors that blacks are prone to a certain condition that might make them poor candidates for this type of surgery. In this second case -- regardless of whether or not the decision-making process is medically-correct or not -- a decision based upon race is in fact being made, but on its face it is not a decision to systematically give poor care to blacks.

Perhaps it is the case that surgical candidacy tests are not ordered in cases where surgery has already been ruled out.

If, for whatever reason, the doctor-patient dyad in a particular case has decided against surgery, is it appropriate at that point to order tests to evaluate surgical candidacy? If not, what is the basis for characterizing the study as showing that systematic quality-of-care discrimination along racial lines is occurring?





-Chris

 

[adrenaline]

The whole point of the article is that blacks have less surgical procedures because the basic test is not being ordered to evalute for significant blockages.


]


Ordering a carotid ultrasound is very different from ordering other tests when you are not certain about proceeding to surgery.

Perhaps it is the case that surgical candidacy tests are not ordered in cases where surgery has already been ruled out.

You cannot rule out if a person is a surigical candidate or not by just talking or examining a person who has had a TIA. (neurological signs have resolved, no carotid bruits may be heard with significant stenosis etc.) It's not like forgoing an MRI when a person has bad back pain but the reflexes etc . are all normal and I know the person has a nonsurgical disc problem by exam.

The severity of TIA symptoms do not correlate with blockage and it is a known fact that there is a clear advantage if there is a 70- 80% blockage or more in the decision for surgery over medical treatment with a blood thinner for those with less than 70-80 % blockage.

Thus, it is a key fork in the medical decision road.

If, for whatever reason, the doctor-patient dyad in a particular case has decided against surgery, is it appropriate at that point to order tests to evaluate surgical candidacy

The only other option without a carotid ultrasound is to place someone on coumadin, a very variable, toxic, closely monitored drug that must be checked every 4 weeks for the rest of their lives. Who wants that? In addition, if ther are no significant plaques, then no surgery or coumadin is needed and only asprin or plavix is then initiated. Thus, the carotid ultrasound is still a key role in making further medical decisions even when not opting for surgery.
It was no accident they chose this over say, cardiac catherizations, where the confounding variables you mentioned would play a greater role.

The basic workup for TIAs, the bread and butter of an Internist, always involves a cartoid ultrasound. Because it is not invasive,wether someone is medically saavy or not, it is a very easy test to convince someone of, unlike a cardiac catherization. It is medically negligent if not ordered (fortunately no one can sue the VA) so they can practice substandard medicine. They practiced substandard medicine, and they did it selectively more so for blacks than whites, wether it was intentionally prejudicial or not, as you and Adam stated, it exists and must be corrected.

 

[Zero]

Well, we know that Adam has a racial bias, since he lists "hostile towards staff" as a reason blacks get substandard health care. Of course, when I read those words, I hear the words "savage jungle bunnies don't know how to behave around good white folk", but surely he can't mean that, can he?

 

[Adam]

Zero, your entire last post qualifies as an ad hominem attack. Go slap your parents for the poor upbringing they gave you.

Once again you make the mistake of assuming ridiculous things. Re-read what was posted.

 

[Zero]

Good morning, Adam. Don't get your sheet in a knot, ok? Seriously, where did you come up with "Hostile behaviour toward staff" as a likely reason why black people get substandard medical care?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

Njorl, don't you think Murray & Gottfredson know how to do their jobs? Why do you immediately assume that Bush's scores must be inflated 250 points? Can the SAT-testees really be tutored to increase their scores by up to 250 points? Do you have any data to show that it can? (Here's a hint - the information at my disposal suggests that gains like you describe are outlandish, Njorl).

Even if the scores are inflated, his IQ is still very likely better than average. Think of it this way: Of course Bush is dumb - it's just that everybody else is that much dumber.


--Mark

In this instance, if you related it accurately, it is quite clear that Murray and Gottfredson are not doing their job well. Maybe they are bad at what they do, or maybe they are choosing to be disingenuous. George W. Bush is not a typical datum. To treat him as such is unscientific. Doing so demonstrates that the author is a poor scientist, or unscrupulous.

I did not assume Bush's SAT was inflated by 250 points. I stated that an informed source believed PR could raise a score from 1000 to 1250 for a student who had no preperation other than standard schooling. It has less benefit for those who would score higher without prep, so I assumed a 250 point increase as an upper limit. Also, the prep courses did not do as well back then.
Regardless of this, his SAT and grades should have kept him out of Yale.

I have seen no sign that he is of above average intelligence. He shows little comprehension of cause and effect in economics or diplomacy. He is disdainful of science. He can not speak a coherent sentence. Every business endeavor in which he engaged was either a failure, or was salvaged by enormous gifts. His only achievements in life, being elected governer and president, were principally based upon his name and connections and the work of others. When left on his own, as in the interview with Tim Russert, he babbles incoherently even in the face of softball questions he knew were coming.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Njorl
In this instance, if you related it accurately, it is quite clear that Murray and Gottfredson are not doing their job well. Maybe they are bad at what they do, or maybe they are choosing to be disingenuous. George W. Bush is not a typical datum. To treat him as such is unscientific. Doing so demonstrates that the author is a poor scientist, or unscrupulous.

I did not assume Bush's SAT was inflated by 250 points. I stated that an informed source believed PR could raise a score from 1000 to 1250 for a student who had no preperation other than standard schooling. It has less benefit for those who would score higher without prep, so I assumed a 250 point increase as an upper limit. Also, the prep courses did not do as well back then.
Regardless of this, his SAT and grades should have kept him out of Yale.

I have seen no sign that he is of above average intelligence. He shows little comprehension of cause and effect in economics or diplomacy. He is disdainful of science. He can not speak a coherent sentence. Every business endeavor in which he engaged was either a failure, or was salvaged by enormous gifts. His only achievements in life, being elected governer and president, were principally based upon his name and connections and the work of others. When left on his own, as in the interview with Tim Russert, he babbles incoherently even in the face of softball questions he knew were coming.

Njorl

Bush is a good illustration of something, though...his intelligence, and the way most of us look at it, is an example of a bias in how we define intelligence. For instance, Bush can't verbalize a rational thought about anything that he is not really interested in(which includes most policy issues, general governance, etc.) Does his inability to verbalize his thought automatically point to a failure in overall ability to thing? Not absolutely, but it is an easy assumption to make.

Bush seems to have some form of intelligence, however. He is brilliant at remembering people's names, for instance. He is also, from all accounts, naturally able to identify people's buttons and knows how to manipulate opinion. None of this stuff would show up on an IQ test, but does that make his form of intelligence invalid?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes that's a good characterization. On anything g-loaded he's miserable, but his people skills are high. If he had been born into a more average family, he might have wound up as a salesman.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes that's a good characterization. On anything g-loaded he's miserable, but his people skills are high. If he had been born into a more average family, he might have wound up as a salesman.

Hmmm...so, sometimes a "standard" measure of intelligence isn't indicative of anything more than a person's ability to do well on a certain style of test. We pretty much all know this, there are tons of studies that show, for instance, that SAT scores aren't a great indicator of college success, for instance. We even have people willing to debate the meaning of Bush's SAT scores, and whether tutoring helped his score at all.

And yet, for the purposes of racial discrimination, we are supposed to accept that a standardized test can be applied to people from different countries, cultures, socio-economic situations, and levels of formal education, and somehow "prove" anything?

 

[hitssquad]

SAT scores needed to get into elite schools

Originally posted by Njorl
This was at a time when "Princeton Review" was unheard of... My buddy who ran a PR franchise assures me that bumping a student from 1000-1250 is fairly common.

Note to readers: PR stands for Princeton Review.
http://www.princetonreview.com/

Another thing. How did he get into Yale with just a 1280 on his SAT's?

For one, alumni credit is typical among illustrious schools.

Second, even today, Yale's 25th percentile is only 1370.
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1846&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Yale%20University

Assuming today's SAT I is scored somewhat more liberally than the pre-1974 SAT...
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fbrainboardsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=4.topic&index=5

...it is conceivable that Bush was well above the 10th percentile of his freshman class as far as SAT score is concerned.

I imagine that their standards are as tough as Princeton's. Princeton only accepted my lowly 1420 because I had good grades from a good high school.

Princeton's 25th percentile today is only 1380.
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1133&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Princeton%20University

Again, the 25th percentile score may have been even lower in the time period in which you mailed in your Princeton application.

 

[Loren Booda]

I am a white male with an MS in physics. I have a disability (schizoaffective disorder) that has put me through as much Hell as most oppressed minorities in the U. S. experience.

I was a contractor to a minority small business; the first white in the over 50 years (as assistant Scoutmaster) of my Scout troop; and a volunteer at Davis Memorial Goodwill Industries (over 95% black). I cannot in good conscience work in physics while ignoring the plight of the suffering or the ignored. The only credit I ask for are those wonderful memories and not to discriminated against because of what I appear to be.

(I got into Yale with 800 Math and 690 Verbal while self-medicated on pot, one Hell that I eventually got over. Princeton Review wouldn't have me.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...so, sometimes a "standard" measure of intelligence isn't indicative of anything more than a person's ability to do well on a certain style of test. We pretty much all know this, there are tons of studies that show, for instance, that SAT scores aren't a great indicator of college success, for instance. We even have people willing to debate the meaning of Bush's SAT scores, and whether tutoring helped his score at all.

And yet, for the purposes of racial discrimination, we are supposed to accept that a standardized test can be applied to people from different countries, cultures, socio-economic situations, and levels of formal education, and somehow "prove" anything?

The point is that the particular talent represented by adult g has been shown to be the best predictor of income and ses in the striver range.

By striver range I mean this: the income distribution can be broken into two parts. The lower part has a curve like a log-normal. The upper part has a power law distribution. They represent strivers and rich people, respectively. G doesn't predict well in the power-law part of the curve, and that is the part of the curve the Bush family inhabit. But everybody who works for a living, blue collar or white, is on the striver curve, and that's where g predicts success - or lack of success. This is not racism, it is understood as well by Sowell, who is a distinguished black scholar, as by Jenson.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes that's a good characterization. On anything g-loaded he's miserable, but his people skills are high. If he had been born into a more average family, he might have wound up as a salesman.

He's a politician: he is a salesman.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Well, salesmen tend to have above-average IQs.

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/smartpie.htm

115 IQ is also the average for such occupations as salesman, nurse, or technician.


Here's a second source:

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. In their book, Know Your Child’s IQ, Glen Wilson and Diana Grylls outline occupations typical of various IQ levels:

140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.
130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical)
120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers.
110 Foremen; Clerks; Telephone Operators; Salesmen; Policemen; Electricians.
100+ Machine Operators; Shopkeepers; Butchers; Welders; Sheet Metal Workers.
100- Warehousemen; Carpenters; Cooks and Bakers; Small Farmers; Truck and Van Drivers.
90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters.

I can't help but note that there is no profession listed for which the 80 IQ are well suited. Think about that for a bit.


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

This excerpt may be a good example of the limited usefulness of all this IQ stuff.

The list of occupations looks curiously dated, and when you look at the sources listed in the link Natchwolf posted, you will find that the primary reference comes from a 1974 study.

The back of my small envelope says that if this list includes all the major occupations of the US today, then the US "National IQ" would be way above 100!

With the enormous changes in the US workforce - indeed, in the workforces in very many countries - over the past generation, who can tell how well suited a white male Ph D with an IQ of 120 is to being a Stenographer? Maybe he could learn Pashto and become a Pharmacist in Afghanistan?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by hitssquad
Note to readers: PR stands for Princeton Review.
http://www.princetonreview.com/






For one, alumni credit is typical among illustrious schools.

Second, even today, Yale's 25th percentile is only 1370.
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1846&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Yale%20University

No, the link you listed shows the bottom of the middle 50% to be 1370. 1370 would be at the 75 percentile.

Assuming today's SAT I is scored somewhat more liberally than the pre-1974 SAT...
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fbrainboardsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=4.topic&index=5

You're using a post on a board as a reference? That is no justification for this assumption.

...it is conceivable that Bush was well above the 10th percentile of his freshman class as far as SAT score is concerned.

He was almost certainly in the bottom 25%, more likely in the bottom 10%, as his score was 100 points below what is now the 75th percentile. I'm sure he had plenty of legacies for company down there.

Princeton's 25th percentile today is only 1380.
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1133&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Princeton%20University

Again, the 25th percentile score may have been even lower in the time period in which you mailed in your Princeton application.



-Chris

[/QUOTE]
Again, you seem to have confused 25% and 75%. Actually, the way they present their statistics, it is not possible to state the percentile for combined scores. It is highly likely that more than 75% of students scored above 1380, though there is a small chance that fewer did.

 

[Nachtwolf]

The list of occupations looks curiously dated, and when you look at the sources listed in the link Natchwolf posted, you will find that the primary reference comes from a 1974 study.

Well, I know that there have been incredible advances in the field of sales during the last 30 years, which have changed the field enormously and allowed salesmen to function at optimal level - even while droolingly mentally handicapped! - through the use of neurohancers and metabolic boosters available in every corner drugstore, but George W. is a bit of an olderster, now, isn't he? When would he have come onto the job market? Oh that's right, maybe sometime around 30 years ago, when my information was perfectly current.

Your masturbatory nitpicking never ceases to amaze me, Nereid!


--Mark

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Njorl

Assuming today's SAT I is scored somewhat more liberally than the pre-1974 SAT...
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fbrainboardsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=4.topic&index=5

You're using a post on a board as a reference? That is no justification for this assumption.

The content was referred to, not the post's might-be status as a non-contingent authority. That content was presented as a contingency, as implied by the use of the word assuming.

No, the link you listed shows the bottom of the middle 50% to be 1370. 1370 would be at the 75 percentile:

Again, you seem to have confused 25% and 75%.

The word used was percentile.

• Main Entry: percentile
  Function: noun
  
  : a value on a scale of one hundred that indicates the percent of a distribution that is equal to or below it (as in performance) <a score in the 95th percentile is a score equal to or better than 95 percent of the scores>

(Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 3.0)



Within a given IQ distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, an IQ of 80 is approximately at the 10th percentile and an IQ of 120 is approximately at the 90th percentile. This is the standard way of using the word percentile.

The combined SAT I score of 1370 -- assuming percentile scores for verbal and math can be combined to obtain full-scale percentile scores -- because it is equal to or better than 25% of the combined SAT I scores submitted to Yale, is at Yale's 25th percentile, not Yale's 75th percentile (which is 1560):
http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail4.jsp?collegeId=1846&detailPageId=3&collegeName=Yale%20University

Actually, the way they present their statistics, it is not possible to state the percentile for combined scores. It is highly likely that more than 75% of students scored above 1380, though there is a small chance that fewer did.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure if it really is impossible to state the combined score percentiles while knowing only the separate percentiles, but I will try to determine that.

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf: Your masturbatory nitpicking never ceases to amaze me, Nereid!

Didn't you say that sexual prowess correlates with intelligence?

How about the correlation between intelligence and 'accuracy' and 'attention to detail'? Seems that'd be pretty important for success in these occupations:
"*SNIP
140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.
130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical)
120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers.
*SNAP"

Corollary? -> Nachtwolf's inaccuracy and lack of attention to detail suggests that he would be more suited to these occupations, despite his assertion of intellectual superiority:
"90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters."

 

[Netme]

When one becomes wealthy and needs no more for tiresome work a certain degree of corruption will occur. They will have thought of themselves as a higher being among those who still need to work to live. They will believe that their ways of thinking have brought them into this higher state of being and so force creates corruption. The underlings are presumably though of as weaklings, unfit by god to possesses such behaviors of their kind, such levels of thinking as their kind.
"So this is the life I give upon you weaklings. I will show you mercy and give upon to you the olden jobs of slavery modernized with current environmental and constitutional conditions. I will bestow upon you the basic rights of our people which will allow for your protection in case you be threatened in any physical way so as to prevent you from not completing these jobs. You will create offspring for continuation of this process and force them into governmental schooling in which they will be taught in a way that will most likely not be understandable to them. The teachers in this schooling will have been taught to dismiss such acknowledged behavioral disturbances as result of your insuperior offspring and will allow for your student to proceed onto the next level. When your child has reached his full potential and sees that he is unable to function along with our kind in schooling, he will then drop out from which he will begin to learn the basis means to your existence. He will see the hardships of your daily struggle to maintain the existence of your physical bodies and will feel remorse for you. He will begin to assist you with your existential duties in maintaining our current environmental pleasures and he will learn quickly. With time he will have developed a positive attitude towards these duties and will see it as a bright future for him..."

 

[Dayle Record]

This is a no-brainer. Hee. The truth about this is that the "system" is designed for and by the left brained deathgrip on the sciences, in a long lived marrige with "baboon type" social heirarchy. That is why we do the most pointed and awful things with Science, Industry, and World Governance. The only wonderful things happening in these realms have to do with trying to fix the big mess we have made. I see layer upon layer, of error, and attempts to continue in error, and attempts to repair a basically broken state of existence. How soon will it be that we have to buy the air we breathe?

If you think there isn't something seriously wrong with the picture, go to your local utilities company. They have all become armed forts. My local gas company has a ten foot tall piked fence around it, and tank stops out front once you are in the gates, and someone like "Oddjob" from the Bond films mans the front desk. I actually asked one of these guys at the power company, " You aren't really here to serve my needs, are you?", smiling, "No" he replied. I said, "It is really more like a twist your head off kind of thing, isn't it" Smiling, he nodded yes. This conversation took place quietly, and kind of jokingly, but it was the way it was.

The reason I mention this, is because as these "men of science", design our world for us, since the world is so inept at being, I guess; they have some things they plan to take away from all of us in the name of science, and their higher intelligence, and therefore ability to better work in our best interests. Many things that we take for granted are no longer on our tables. We now take for granted that the air is seriously polluted, and the water, and the land. There is not a plan to alter the means by which that happens, nor is there a plan to outline the basic rights of planetary life, including the rights for unpolluted air, water, land, and most importantly the electromagnetic energies at large that interface with our ability to maintain our individuality.

Apparently without any permission being asked the space weather is being controlled so that satellites function better. The weather in general is well on the way to being controlled by that big array in Alaska, and large holes in the energy shielding of our planet are being created for fun and profit by, Raytheon. These people have been carefully promoted and compartmented because they perform well in their niches and obey. This is Science, without ideals of mercy, compassion, service to the whole. This is where the left brain thing, has been hurting the daylights out of us, and now with the capacity for grand global control systems; some sort of whole ethic has to emerge. Value theory, who, what is most valueable to the most of life on this world? To have a very narrow spectrum of individual, make these determinations, based on corporate futures, poor us. So why is Science dominated by white males? Because they do what they are told.

 

[Nereid]

So why are you using a PC, the internet, etc to join in our discussion here? Wouldn't you be happier living on Ducie Island?, where the air in unpolluted, the water falls from the sky, and the land untilled (you may not like the rats, but white scientists had nothing to do with putting them on the island). Be sure to leave your anti-biotics at home (though I can't really understand why you feel a life expectancy of a couple of decades, at most, is a good thing).