Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IQ tests are not good indicators because everyone would need to be tested. Some people don't get tested. There are people who "might" have had a low IQ score if tested and still had success. IQ scores aren't a good indicator of success. It was said that Andy Warhol had a low IQ score and he was a successful artist. In many cases, I think IQ tests are used as a form of social contrrol. It doesn't always help people. For those persons who don't score high, sometimes it is used to say "you'll never be a success" or "you're not smart enough". In many cases, this can cause people to think low of themselves and eventually, a self-fulfilling prophecy. No child has to end up poor and a "failure". Some children learn in different ways. I am considered a whiz in geography, but I do very poor in math(ironic because my father doesn't know geography well, but he is very good at math). Whenever I received individual, concentrated instruction, I did much better. The teacher broke a math problem down into pieces and explained how to put it back together. Many problems that affect some students now were probably there at age 4 or 5. Some students might have dyslexia and not even know it. To say some people will never be successful, well, I find that a cop out.
You say it will cost more to educate some people than its worth. Well, if that is the train of thought you are going with, I have a question in response to it: What do you suggest we do with those students, for whom you say it is more costly to teach them than its worth? Like you said, society will pay either way, either through the public school system, or through the justice system. If these persons are jailed, then, there is something else to deal with: They will eventually come back to society. If these persons cannot get jobs and live productively in society, chances are, they will committ another crime and go back to prison.
1. I'm not sure anyone's IQ is tested any more. However, that does not change the fact that there are those on the lower end of the IQ scale and it does not change the fact that these people will find it very difficult to keep up with the rest of society.
2. Yes I said that we will pay for these folks in any event. What I also said was that it is a cost/return analysis. This is the same decision an employer will make when trying to decide whether it's worth hiring low IQ people. Will it cost more to employ them than they will produce. I'm sorry but the answer to that question in many instances is . . . yes.
You cannot change these things. Also, please understand that this is just a theory. I'm trying to offer possible reason why we are not spending more money and doing the other things you suggest. Do you have an answer to your own questions?
PS - I'm surprised by your argument against IQ tests as I said nothing about IQ tests. I was talking about IQ and not IQ tests. You're better than that!
- Reel
Last edited by Reelist in Atlanta; 12-07-2009 at 03:55 PM..
After reading the posts about blacks in the Ohio cities, I feel sorry for those who have been put into a state of despair not at fault of their own. However.....there is another side to this as well:
There are blacks who are in certain predicaments who were TRUE victims of poverty and discrimination. And there are blacks who are in certain predicaments because they wanted to be in it! While there may be blacks (especially older ones and those who live in economically depressed areas) who are truly suffering and were psychologically pressured as if there was no way out, there are blacks who bring on their own suffering and mediocrity all for the sake of "keeping loyal to the race" or for "not being seen as a sell-out."
The latter has definitely been the case for what I've observed while living in the DC area, particularly the eastern ghetto suburbs outside of DC. Even though the schools that are in black-dominated places are garbage (considering the income brackets of these areas), there is more than enough opportunity for a black person from a working-lower income background (and even a complete poor upbringing) to rise his/herself up to a higher standing. However, the biggest problems are the "ghetto subculture of younger blacks" and "bitter mindset of middle-aged blacks" that dominates the perspective of the DC area black community.
You have the ghetto subculture that praises anything that's criminal-related, poverty-inducing, thuggish, and just degenerate in general. Many of these teens and kids who embellish in this subculture do it to imitate their family members, impress their peers, and especially get the attention of young hoodrat-to-be girls who fall for ghetto hoodlums teen boys in an instant. I've even had cultural clashes with family members (particularly my cousins) who fall for this with the end result being most of the older members of the family defending their ghetto ways.
Which leads me to the bitter middle-aged blacks (the main predecessors of ghetto young blacks) who get their kicks off blaming whitey and everyone else for their failures and mediocrity, taking all of their work problems out on their kids, ranting about God, Jesus, and religion all day while having the most hateful hearts I've ever seen, all while trying to make ghetto blacks look like true victims and giving excuses for (and sometimes defending their) inhumanly behavior, but scorning any black person who dares rises out of the working class through anything but sports, rapping, and drugs - and especially holds disdain for blacks who use education as the main key of improving their standard of living.
The thing I've also noticed is that most truly poor blacks who come from places that have faced excessive job loss in manufacturing and have a historical record of racial prejudice aren't even as flamboyantly ghetto. I can also protest that this is the case for people who actually live in the city of the District. *Maybe I should have made it clear that while there are more blacks in poverty in DC itself, the more flamboyantly ghetto young blacks and bitter middle-aged blacks mostly reside in the Maryland suburbs east of DC.* The blacks in DC may be notably more poor and have more of an urban element to them, but I haven't had as much of a cultural clash with this truly impoverished group of people. It's been a case of me not messing with/criticizing them and them not messing with/criticizing me.
The ghetto and bitter blacks are the sides of the black community I've seen, and these - at least for the DC area - are the primary (not exclusive, but primary reasons) why there is such a despondent, impoverished, and divided black community.
I think that most things that I have seen discussed in this thread so far, are the things that I have pretty much always known and agree with.
1) Inner city blacks were deliberately consolidated into one area of cities for political purposes.
2) Those inner city blacks, who had an overwhelmingly common history of unequal access to, and thus a lowered emphasis on education were prone to impoverished circumstances.
3) The crack epidemic led to blacks doing the exact same things that many other impoverished cultures do when faced with poverty and joblessness: self medicating. Some self medicate with alcohol (which luckily for them, is legal), and become functioning alcoholics. While many inner city blacks self medicated with what was easily the most accessible, lucrative, and potent drug available to them: Crack. Escapism at its not so finest.
4) Crack, as with any non regulated drug, led to addictions, teratogenic mental illness, and worsening of existing psychiatric conditions.
5) IQ tests have long been understood to be an unreliable gauge by which to determine a person's likelihood of success in life. Some of the most successful people in this country, and even the world, nowdays are people who would more than likely either perform poorly in IQ tests, or scoff at them altogether. Rappers, athletes, and other entertainers/artisans, make arguably more money, are more innovative and reach a higher level of power today, than many people whom we consider even the most academically inclined today. IMO, the most obvious evidence that IQ tests are impractical, if not irrelevant, is that employers dont ask for IQ scores or require candidates to take IQ tests before deciding to hire employees.
5) IQ tests have long been understood to be an unreliable gauge by which to determine a person's likelihood of success in life. Some of the most successful people in this country, and even the world, nowdays are people who would more than likely either perform poorly in IQ tests, or scoff at them altogether. Rappers, athletes, and other entertainers/artisans, make arguably more money, are more innovative and reach a higher level of power today, than many people whom we consider even the most academically inclined today. IMO, the most obvious evidence that IQ tests are impractical, if not irrelevant, is that employers dont ask for IQ scores or require candidates to take IQ tests before deciding to hire employees.
I have not doubt that there may be people with high IQ's who do not test well but there won't be anyone with a low IQ who will test well. If that's your point I think that's fine.
However, as I said, I don't think anyone said anything about IQ tests or IQ testing. Just because there are no IQ tests does not mean that everyone's IQ is equal and people with high IQ's tend to do better in life than those with low IQ's. If this is what you are trying to refute then I will say that it is just nonsense and there is nothing in your post to indicate otherwise.
By the way, one can have a high IQ and not be 'academically inclined'. Your #5 post is just wrong for so many different reasons.
1. I'm not sure anyone's IQ is tested any more. However, that does not change the fact that there are those on the lower end of the IQ scale and it does not change the fact that these people will find it very difficult to keep up with the rest of society.
2. Yes I said that we will pay for these folks in any event. What I also said was that it is a cost/return analysis. This is the same decision an employer will make when trying to decide whether it's worth hiring low IQ people. Will it cost more to employ them than they will produce. I'm sorry but the answer to that question in many instances is . . . yes.
You cannot change these things. Also, please understand that this is just a theory. I'm trying to offer possible reason why we are not spending more money and doing the other things you suggest. Do you have an answer to your own questions?
PS - I'm surprised by your argument against IQ tests as I said nothing about IQ tests. I was talking about IQ and not IQ tests. You're better than that!
- Reel
I know you mentioned IQ. How do you find out someone's IQ score? You test it. I am not entirely convinced that someone with an IQ score that is considered low will definitely end up a failure. Maybe that person has other abilities that haven't been tapped yet. Andy Warhol had an IQ score of 86. He is one of the great artists of the world. He isn't the only one.
I know you mentioned IQ. How do you find out someone's IQ score? You test it. I am not entirely convinced that someone with an IQ score that is considered low will definitely end up a failure. Maybe that person has other abilities that haven't been tapped yet. Andy Warhol had an IQ score of 86. He is one of the great artists of the world. He isn't the only one.
Exactly...If my bullet point #5 is nonsense then the entire mention of IQ's is nonsense, as there is no basis for "IQ's" without IQ Tests. Which is what I have always known.. Obviously, tests are the way that people arrive at a numerical measurement of IQ.
I have not doubt that there may be people with high IQ's who do not test well but there won't be anyone with a low IQ who will test well. If that's your point I think that's fine.
However, as I said, I don't think anyone said anything about IQ tests or IQ testing. Just because there are no IQ tests does not mean that everyone's IQ is equal and people with high IQ's tend to do better in life than those with low IQ's. If this is what you are trying to refute then I will say that it is just nonsense and there is nothing in your post to indicate otherwise.
By the way, one can have a high IQ and not be 'academically inclined'. Your #5 post is just wrong for so many different reasons.
- Reel
Would you mind listing some of the "So many different reasons" that my post is wrong?
Conventional wisdom would suggest that we would use IQ tests to measure, well, "IQ's" -- as YOU were the first to mention. If there are no reliable IQ tests, then my initial statement resonates with even MORE truth.
Solytaire: "IMO, the most obvious evidence that IQ tests are impractical, if not irrelevant, is that employers dont ask for IQ scores or require candidates to take IQ tests before deciding to hire employees."
If we both agree that IQ tests are often flawed and manipulated, and thus irrelevant, then just what are you arguing? In other words, what are YOU refuting?
Even if we take just one of your own many statements which contradict IQ measurements, the usefulness of IQ's as a measurement to gauge a person's success in life, flies out of the window.
You stated:
"I understand that there could be some high IQ people who do not succeed. A high IQ is not a gurantee of success. But none of the low IQ people will be very successful and they will always be poor."
Rapper Lil Wayne is one of the most successful people in the country, reaching audiences of ALL backgrounds and ethnicity. Rapper TIP, who did not graduate high school, is also one of the most successful people in the country, who also has mainstream appeal. They both come from poverty, and are probably wealthier than everyone on CD combined.
Using your own rationale, there are only two explanations for this: A) Either they are both geniuses, who have incredibly high IQ's. Despite the fact that their greatest contributions to society are imprisonment, about a dozen "baby mamas", and lyrics about drugs/drug dealing, women, guns and jewelery. Or B) the tests would be considered flawed and unacceptable in this instance (unless their IQ's were determined to be low of course, that would be perfectly acceptable).
If the answer is "A", then we must question why a high IQ should have any credibility in predicting productive members of society.
If the answer is "B", then I would hope we would question why they are wealthy, if poverty and high IQ's are mutually exclusive.
The racism and gross generalization in this thread by white and low self esteem black people is the number one reason our unemployment rate is so high. It will take a catastrophe or just plain evolution for humans to realize stereotyping and racism is barbaric. It stifles the very progress we try to achieve on this lonely planet. Failing to empathize with others is a sign of barbarism IMO...
I am sure there is racism BUT I feel like a lot of African Americans have very poor work ethics. I remember like last month, I was the Minneapolis International airport and one of the security guards, a Black gentleman had fallen asleep in his chair, I thought that was very unprofessional and irresponsible. The whole Black attitude works against them, like wearing certain clothes, walking a certain way, heck, I have seen black kids come to job interviews with do rags on their heads and pants falling off their butts. I don't see why a Black man who is educated, presents himself in a professional and respectful manner and speaks good English would not be able to find a good job!
That statement is just ridiculous. This statement is obviously coming from someone who isn’t well informed or educated. To say “a lot of African Americans have poor work ethics” because you saw a black guy sleeping at work or young kids just entering the work force dressed inappropriate for interviews. The unemployment among blacks is so high because of people like you but with hiring power having preconceived notions regarding black works. I’ve also seen white workers sleeping on the job and I’ve seen them not dressed for the occasion as well. But the difference between me and you is I judge the person not the group.
Jobless Rate for Young Black Men: 34.5% - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/24/politics/washingtonpost/main5761670.shtml - broken link)
What are your thoughts?
If this is a repost, please forgive.
I thought that was the incarceration rate - or - the number who "have been to jail, prison, probation", etc. Though I think the sample was 18 to 35 year old black men. The New York Times had an article on this. It was actually 1 in 9 black males between the ages of 20 and 34 were currently incarcerated. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
