Baltimore: Surprised? Even Poor Whites Have It Better Than Blacks (gated, safe)

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Just because you don't like the results doesn't make it any less scientific.

You're right, which is why my argument doesn't rest on whether I like the results. Yet another straw man. The results are "less scientific" because they do not rely on precise, scientifically-sound definitions of "intelligence" and "race." These are not scientific concepts. Not sure why you don't understand this.

Originally Posted by EdwardA

By questioning it's legitimacy you have conceded the results are legit.

I have done no such thing.

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Also the studies are legit because we spend billions of dollars trying to close the gap.

No, we don't. Anyway, this is a red-herring.

If we recognize that only a few Blacks are capable of performing at high levels (something WEB DuBois said a century ago) we could better allocate resources. We could track Black kids who don't do well academically into more suitable roles instead of frustrating them by pushing school to the point they dropout, turn to crime etc.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph that I'm not sure where to begin. First of all W.E.B. Dubois did not make any such claim. Secondly, you assume that public education causes crime. You also assume that there is some sort of rational, objective way to determine what constitutes "suitable roles" and that IQ, a vague, unscientific notion of intelligence, is fixed, hereditary and has a clear connection to people's roles in society. Your policy ideas are truly dangerous, as they lead to greater social control based on dubious notions of intelligence and race.

[baltplanner]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

You have asked numerous times "why does it matter?" To answer the question, return to the original post in this thread. The investigators hold that white racism and privilege are the root cause of black poverty in Baltimore. This assertion is incompetent unless factors such as IQ differences and family backgrounds are controlled in the analysis. Perhaps this has been done, perhaps not, but if so it is not mentioned in the synopsis we have seen.

So "it matters" because the study is invalid and perhaps even dishonest if there are differences in IQ and these differences have not been factored out. In other words, and for example, if one group has a mean IQ of 80 and the other has a mean IQ of 100, then the assertion is invalid that differences in income are caused by white privilege and racism. Such differences in this scenario are far more likely to be caused by differences in intelligence. On the other hand, if both groups have a mean IQ of 100, or if the analysis has competently factored-out the variation caused by differences in IQ, then the assertion of white privilege and racism are plausible. This means, necessarily, that we need to understand IQ and race, and control the study appropriately, in order to understand what's going on.

As to why it's important in general, think of two schools of thought: (1) urban problems are caused by white privilege and racism, and (2) urban problems are caused by the lack of cognitive ability remaining in cities such as Baltimore. Note that these are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is conclusive and overwhelming that there are substantial statistical differences in IQ between the races. You may not like this, and I in fact don't like it, but it's simply a fact. Ignoring this fact precludes any useful approaches to improving the lot of the urban underclass and results only in wasteful, ineffectual policy.

A good example would be President Obama's notion (and I indeed voted for him, twice, by the way) that everyone should go to college. But someone with an IQ of 75, as well might be typical of a Baltimore ghetto black, is not going to profit from attending any legitimate institution of higher learning. When someone with a low IQ finds a school that will accept him and graduate him four years later, or perhaps more likely eight years later, that person can't hold a job commensurate with his self-image as a "college graduate," and his life is the worse.

So no, only people with an adequate level of intelligence should go to college. If this results in fewer blacks attending college per capita than whites, however, charges of racism abound. But these charges are invalid if there are racial differences in intelligence, as all evidence strongly suggests -- that's why "it matters" to investigate and discuss these questions. Along similar lines, affirmative action, for example, is race-based; therefore, we need to understand exactly what's going on at the foundation. That's why "it matters."

All this notwithstanding, the thought police -- and I would certainly put you in that category -- do everything in their power using thinly veiled hate speech such as you direct at me in order to try to squelch any discussion of the question of race and intelligence.

Well said my friend. But you have to admit, even if we all embrace the fact that the lower average IQ of blacks exists, it doesn't do much to inspire hope in the black community. Instilling in them the idea that they're statistically more likely to be intellectually inferior would only further their self hate.... and I don't believe that will be helpful in reducing socially dysfunctional behavior within their communities.

Having a lower average group IQ and being intrinsically "bad" don't have to go hand in hand. But if you crush a man's spirit I would guess that he would be more likely to act out.

[baltplanner]

Also, and I'm not sure you're getting enough credit for acknowledging this, but there are a lot of factors beyond group IQ rates that contribute towards the underachievement and higher social dysfunction amongst the black population in the US.

I think most of us have an easy time acknowledging the profound impact of other contributing factors (generations of unproductive social moores (many of which were initially instilled by white slave owners, or whites during the Jim Crow era), redlining, economic and educational access and equality, the cycles of poverty that result directly from oppression, disproportionate charging and incarceration etc.)

Most whites (at least most I know) acknowledge all this... but that doesn't change the fact that black communities, particularly poor black communities, look like terrifying third world areas to them. The simple solution for white people is just to avoid these places and push the issue of black suffering into the back of their minds.... which means they're less invested, and less likely to engage in trying to helping black people overcome their problems. It's and "us" and "them" mentality.

White liberals are trying the engage the problem directly, it's just that a lot of their programs don't have significant impacts, so they're looked at as a waste of money... and a lot of times that's true.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it rubs me the wrong way when people just decide to give up on a huge portion of our country just because it's more convenient for them to label blacks as stupid and inept.

[Hamish Forbes]

Originally Posted by baltplanner

But you have to admit, even if we all embrace the fact that the lower average IQ of blacks exists, it doesn't do much to inspire hope in the black community. Instilling in them the idea that they're statistically more likely to be intellectually inferior would only further their self hate.... and I don't believe that will be helpful in reducing socially dysfunctional behavior within their communities.

Having a lower average group IQ and being intrinsically "bad" don't have to go hand in hand. But if you crush a man's spirit I would guess that he would be more likely to act out.

I agree completely, and I never bring the subject up except in response to unfounded charges of white racism.

[Hamish Forbes]

Devout Urbanist -- you deny the validity of the entire field of social science, you deny the validity of overwhelming empirical findings, you deny the existence of race, you deny that IQ is a measurable attribute, you deny the merit of our existing social order, and you deny that considerations of intelligence should be allowed to enter into social policy, just to name a few of the little gems that you have cast before us.

Moreover, you decline to make any suggestions as to how the social order might be improved, or what your own qualifications and accomplishments might be so that people may judge the value of the unsupported opinions you state as fact.

Nice rap sheet. In short, the bulk of the ideas that you have expressed in this thread are piffle.

So, at this point, who really cares what you think? Maybe your dog cares, just as Captain Queeg's dog cared about him . . .

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

Devout Urbanist -- you deny the validity of the entire field of social science, you deny the validity of overwhelming empirical findings, you deny the existence of race, you deny that IQ is a measurable attribute, you deny the merit of our existing social order, and you deny that considerations of intelligence should be allowed to enter into social policy, just to name a few of the little gems that you have cast before us.

Moreover, you decline to make any suggestions as to how the social order might be improved, or what your own qualifications and accomplishments might be so that people may judge the value of the unsupported opinions you state as fact.

Nice rap sheet. In short, the bulk of the ideas that you have expressed in this thread are piffle.

So, at this point, who really cares what you think? Maybe your dog cares, just as Captain Queeg's dog cared about him . . .

Rather than address my claims you resort yet again to personal attacks and misreadings. I do not "deny the validity of the entire field of social science." I simply question many of its methods and predictions and submit that it lacks the predictive value of the natural sciences. In fact, my own position mirrors the one held by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame:

While the physical sciences produce many detailed and precise predictions, the social sciences do not. The reason is that such predictions almost always require randomized controlled experiments, which are seldom possible when people are involved. For one thing, we are too complex: our behavior depends on an enormous number of tightly interconnected variables that are extraordinarily difficult to distinguish and study separately. Also, moral considerations forbid manipulating humans the way we do inanimate objects. As a result, most social science research falls far short of the natural sciences’ standard of controlled experiments.

And:

Even if social science were able to greatly increase their use of randomized controlled experiments, Manzi’s judgment is that “it will not be able to adjudicate most policy debates.” Because of the many interrelated causes at work in social systems, many questions are simply “impervious to experimentation.” But even when we can get reliable experimental results, the causal complexity restricts us to “extremely conditional, statistical statements,” which severely limit the range of cases to which the results apply.

Thus, like Gutting I conclude that "[g]iven the limited predictive success and the lack of consensus in social sciences, their conclusions can seldom be primary guides to setting policy."

As for race, yes, like most scientists I deny the validity of race as a meaningful, precise, and useful scientific concept. As the biologist Jan Sapp puts it:

The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs.

And:

Although race is void of biological foundation, it has a profound social reality.

As for IQ, yes, like numerous highly regarded scholars, from the cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky to the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, I reject it as a valid measurement of human intelligence and predictor of success, in part because neither of these things can be clearly defined. Moreover, I reject the notion of causal links between IQ, race, and social outcomes because these links have not been proven. Correlation is not causation.

I don't have any duty to share my views about social policy with you. But you have a duty to base your claims on sound premises if you want to have a rational discussion or debate. You haven't done this. Your premises are false or unsupported. End of story.

[Hamish Forbes]

Perhaps someone else is using your ID. Or are you losing track of your thoghts as you flail away?

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

I do not "deny the validity of the entire field of social science."

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

most social science is a joke to begin with.

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

I don't have any duty to share my views about social policy with you.

Underlying everything that you have written here is the premise that you have superior insight into these kinds of questions. So let's see what your insights are in a positive way -- not what you deny or disagree with -- and let's hear about your own credentials and accomplishments. But if it turned out that you were little more than a bloviating gasbag, everyone would understand and likely excuse your reticence.

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

Perhaps someone else is using your ID. Or are you losing track of your thoghts as you flail away /

More evidence of your reading comprehension problem. Apparently you don't know the difference between "most social science" and "the entire field of social science."

[Hamish Forbes]

Here's one positive sign: it seems like we agree that there is indeed a correlation among these attributes:

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

I reject the notion of causal links between IQ, race, and social outcomes because these links have not been proven. Correlation is not causation.

You know, the cigarette industry pioneered in the exploitation of "correlation is not causation" in their desperate attempt to defend an untenable set of ideas.

But the really interesting thing is that you have spent countless bits claiming that there is no such thing as race -- so how can it be correlated with anything? Or do we now agree, also, about the existence of race?

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

Underlying everything that you have written here is the premise that you have superior insight into these kinds of questions.

Nonsense. Underlying everything I have written is the work of actual scientists and philosophers, some of whom I have already mentioned.