I.Q. and Privilege (moved from Should White Men Stop Writing?)

TheNighSwan said:

For the John vs Jamal argument, I have taken my cues from this article: http://datacolada.org/2015/04/23/36-how-to-study-discrimination-or-anything-with-names-if-you-must/.

Click to expand...

And apparently gotten something much different out of it than I did on reading it. I found the explanation to not be adequate in the least, whether yours or the paper's. Jamal didn't just enter lowerclass Black society during the time period given, it also entered upperclass Black society in the US. The move towards what was percieved as a Pan-African culture in regards to names was embraced by all strata of Black people. The assumption, no matter how well intentioned, that Jamal is a "lowerclass name" then becomes racist.

TheNighSwan said:

For the John vs Jamal argument, I have taken my cues from this article: http://datacolada.org/2015/04/23/36-how-to-study-discrimination-or-anything-with-names-if-you-must/

For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Click to expand...

There are so many problems with this post I'm going to need a real keyboard to address all of them. Forgive me while I wait until I have more than my phone at my disposal.

TheNighSwan said:

For the John vs Jamal argument, I have taken my cues from this article: http://datacolada.org/2015/04/23/36-how-to-study-discrimination-or-anything-with-names-if-you-must/

For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Click to expand...

I reviewed the article you have been using and read through several of the studies it pulled from. In multiple cases the authors point out that someone's name can get them fewer callbacks to a job. They give several possible reasons for this and then circle back to how that is an incidental/intentional discriminatory practice. This addresses white naming privilege; if a "whiter" name gets more callbacks then they have a leg up on the competition.
I appreciate that at least one study showed little correlation once the interview was given for a preference of white/black names and would like to hear more of that. To your point about Jamal vs Bubba, that mixes culture into this naming discussion because "Luann" and other (generally Southern sounding) names are a subset of the white population and can be viewed negatively because of stereotypes. I feel like this is just chasing our tails because stereotypes don't disprove privilege. Like we have said before it is a complicated issue that comes from many sources. A more "traditional white name" like Brad, Greg, and Todd don't generally have a stereotype tied to them and so those can sound more hire-able. If that doesn't sound like an advantage getting to an interview then I don't know what to tell you.

For your IQ thing, that needs some sources because I call BS on that. You bring that source (remember we don't accept anecdotal evidence) and then we'll see if that holds up. I had to delete a whole rant over this. Put up or hush up with this IQ thing.

TheNighSwan, it's both. Sometimes it comes from outside factors like employers and how the justice system is run, other times it can be personal choices and a matter of being born in the right time/place. There are racists in the world who intimidate and cause harm, there are people who don't like to go out of their cultural comfort zone, there are people who are completely unaware that what they are doing could be because of privilege, and more. I would consider your example about the poverty trap an example of white privilege. Both the average starting point and upward mobility of black vs white families are different with whites in a better spot, which can be thought of as both a historical issue and outside forces holding families back. There are all kinds of examples of privilege, many are even just things a white person doesn't have to think about that can cause stress/anxiety/nervousness and affect one's day to day life.

Here's addressing your IQ statement and the links you included, I put the link as the # to avoid mix up and my quick thoughts on what I was able to read:
1. I can’t view anything about the study w/o purchasing it, the graphs I can see measure IQ and crime, does not compare white vs PoC
2. Doesn’t compare white vs black, again shows that criminal behavior correlates to lower scores. Compared black females to other black females, not supporting your claim.
3. Can’t view anything but abstract, still seems to correlate criminal activity vs low IQ score, which I am not arguing against.
4. Can’t read, issue pointing out low SES schools and a perpetual cycle of poverty, “The SES of enrolled students was very similar to that of specific schools’ applicant pools, which suggests that the barrier to college for low-SES students in the United States is a lower rate of entering the college admissions process, rather than exclusion on the part of colleges.”
5. High SAT = better performance, race mentioned but can’t read study, didn't mention differences in admission rate or scores.
6. Can’t open, compares some test and job performance, doesn’t mention race
7. GMA, another test to show job performance, race not mentioned in abstract
8. AFQT isn’t the same as an IQ test. Roughly half the graph shows there is no significant difference between whites and blacks of similar AFQT, with differences occurring in the top and bottom 25%
9. More intelligent = longer life
10. More intelligent = longer life

So here's my take-
6 of your links would require me to purchase the study (and some weren't cheap) so I only read the abstract given. 1 of those 6 even mentioned race and it didn't highlight any key differences in IQ.
Of the 4 that I could read the article or graph given, 3 didn't compare whites vs blacks at all (link #2 noted black females with themselves).

One graph that does show (not IQ) scores comparing white and blacks is measuring upward mobility out of the bottom 20% SES. This graph doesn't compare scores to each other. It does not say that whites did better overall than blacks. This graph only shows that for the bottom and top quartile blacks have less a chance to escape poverty than whites.

So here is my problem, not 1 of the 10 articles you showed me proved your point even a little. The only one close does not support what you claimed in the last post. That graph for #8 shows that higher scores on the AFQT allows better upward mobility but it does not support your previous post about whites scoring a standard deviation higher. If anything, there is a problem that someone who is black and scoring well on one of those tests has a harder issue than a white person of the same score (privilege).

You HAVE NOT shown in any way that blacks do worse than whites on IQ tests. The quote you gave,

TheNighSwan said:

For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Click to expand...

Seems to just come from you because it wasn't in anything I was able to read. I agree that lower scores on standardized tests correlates to a plethora of issues later in life, but the 2nd half about blacks is utter crap.

TheNighSwan said:

For IQ, people often misinterpret what IQ means. IQ doesn't mean much as a measure of "intelligence", however IQ is a really good predictor of status; high IQ is strongly correlated with high salary, good job, stable and healthy life and so on, while low IQ is strongly correlated with poverty, unstable job, criminality, drug use, teen pregnancy and so on. When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm actually still on my phone today, so this will be short and simple.

But first of all, IQ is indeed intended to be a measure of intelligence. As you yourself point out, it is quite poor at this, because it really measures particular kinds of intelligence as valued by the culture that designed it. I.e., Western European culture.

So those who interpret IQ as intending to measure intelligence are not mistaken.

You, however, point out that IQ is a good predictor of many other things including "status". A "good predictor" of something is not a measure of that thing, nor does it even imply it was ever intended to measure that thing. You seem to be the one with the misunderstanding here.

That high IQ is highly correlated with success in a Western civilization is not surprising in the least, but neither does it imply "problems" with those who score low or even those who lack success in such an environment. Of course IQ correlates well with success in a Western civilization: it is designed to measure those ways of thinking that Western civilizations values.

What this means is NOT that Black communities or other demographics that score low are less intelligent OR "have problems", but rather that our society is burdened with cultural expectations over particular ways of thinking, likely at the expense of other ways of thinking that are just as useful but less valued in our (imposed) culture.

In other words by saying "the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)", what is often actually being said is that "the African American community has different cultural values and ways of knowing than the White Anerican community (let's see what we can do to make them think more like white people)."

I should note that this ignores that many African American communities and other underrepresented communities ARE underserved in education and educational opportunities, which is a separate issue from the cultural bias of IQ tests, but just as (and probably much more immediately) important.

So much for short and simple. That was a real pain in the ass to type on my phone.

Kuwisdelu, I honestly don't know if NighSwan is just not getting it or back peddling from his last remark, but I appreciate you and others calling BS on that ridiculous statement.

First, if we're even gonna talk about IQ tests with reservations, we need to break them down into their different sections, because those sections measure different things.

Second, everything Kuwi said.

I can use ice cream sales to predict the weather.

It still doesn't mean shit.

(attempt at humor)

What Kuwi said.
An urban North American with all his/her high IQ points would be totally adrift in a different environment requiring a different intelligence.
What about the intelligence of, say, an Amerindian living in a remote area in the depths of Guyana. He might score very low on a US intelligence test, simply because his way of thinking is a different one, and his intelligence adapted to survival in his environment. There, sensory skills are so acute as to appear almost miraculous for someone from the Western world, while we appear dull, helpless, and, yes, stupid.

TheNighSwan, you provided a quote that you couldn't back up. I honestly see where your confusion was, but it was the quote I was requesting you prove.
This was your post,

TheNighSwan said:

When some statistical researchers claim that "even after adjusting for cultural factors, the IQ of African Americans is still one standard deviation below the IQ of White Americans", this must not be interpreted as saying "black people are stupid", but rather as saying "we can show statistically with a single indice that the African American community has a lot more problems than the White American community (let's see what we can do to help them)".

Click to expand...

You quoted someone or yourself and you didn't back that up.

Please don't try and twist what I have said. I have said White people have privilege and provided evidence that shows different factors that hinder and weigh on other races. A false assumption can be made (lower IQ scores) and an unfair test given (IQ and AFQT) which is my case here. I take offense because a poor test can effect an entire culture and an educational/justice system that treats minorities unfairly based on false pretenses like IQ scores and differences in culture.

Discussing the differences between scores on standardized tests is another topic for another thread. This thread is about white privilege and I wager enough of a case has been made. Want to talk more about IQs and learning/poverty gaps? Make a new thread.

Please and thank you!

IQ testing, by which I mean the bigger, well-established, well-validated (both ways) tests, like the WISC/WAIS and S-B type, is a decent measure of what we generally define as intelligence, partially because the general perception of IQ relates to what's tested.

As for the tests themselves being culturally or ethnically or geographically biased, some, few sections, mostly verbal, that rely on specific knowledge of facts and vocabulary and the like, sure. Many of the sections test things like working memory, pattern recognition (abstract-type patterns), and other things that don't really have cultural or language ties (save the instructions, which shouldn't be an issue, as they're given by the administrating professional).

Must be something to have a high IQ. Some on AW clearly do. You can tell by their posts. Me, I'm lucky if I score 30 if I ever took the test. But like everything, you make the best of things and work with what you have. Being smart is a plus to be sure but it isn't the be all end all, IMO !

What, so high? Boy, you're smart!

cornflake said:

As for the tests themselves being culturally or ethnically or geographically biased, some, few sections, mostly verbal, that rely on specific knowledge of facts and vocabulary and the like, sure. Many of the sections test things like working memory, pattern recognition (abstract-type patterns), and other things that don't really have cultural or language ties (save the instructions, which shouldn't be an issue, as they're given by the administrating professional).

Click to expand...

The ability to deal with abstractions is something that improves with practice, and so of course it's influenced by culture and background. Modern people perform better on IQ tests than previous generations, and it's not because our ancestors were stupid. It's that modern education and experience, things like reading fiction and playing computer games, require a level of abstract thinking, so we get to practice the skills that are looked for on IQ tests.

I think IQ is somewhat meaningful, in that someone who tests with a high IQ is almost certainly "smarter" (for some value of smart) than someone who does not.

Some of the people talking about "different kinds of intelligence" are really talking about particular skills. A skill is something that can be improved with practice, whereas intelligence (to the degree we can measure such a thing) is innate.

I don't know of any strong correlation between IQ and either academic success or general success in life. Because what actually gets you through life is skills.

I don't think i'd say different kinds of intelligence are just skills. Fluid intelligence, according to Cattell, is really the ability to reason and think abstractly without any prior instruction or practice. Crystalized intelligence is the knowledge that comes from experience and learning. These are distinct entities. FI decreases over time and age, whereas CI increases (in general). And sure, testing tries to get at both of these but that again gets back to how culture bound our definitions of "intelligence" are (which attributes are valued) and how we can measure them cross culturally. Yes, some constructs are valued pretty globally - judgement, reasoning, etc.- but again, how we measure these and capture how they get expressed in different cultures is what is tricky. Is someone who knows about herbs and medicinal plants but scores poorly on tradidtional measures of IQ "dumber" than someone who scores higher (but knows nothing about traditional healing)? The argument is that there are people who score 140+ but don't know how to find water in a desert. So, again, you have to compare apples to apples; and not apples to lopi sweaters! For what the tests are designed for, they do pretty well, but it's when we start drawing a lot of conclusions that things get murkier!

What gets us through life...skills, luck, faith, access to resources...

bombergirl69 said:

Is someone who knows about herbs and medicinal plants but scores poorly on tradidtional measures of IQ "dumber" than someone who scores higher (but knows nothing about traditional healing)? The argument is that there are people who score 140+ but don't know how to find water in a desert.

Click to expand...

There are people who score 140+ but can't do simple algebra. Because they haven't learned it. What intelligence (as we usually use the term) means is one's ability to learn and process things. Learning to find water in the desert is a skill - given two people who don't know how to do this, a person with an IQ of 140 and a person with an IQ of 100, the person with the IQ of 140 would almost certainly learn the skill faster.

autumnleaf said:

we get to practice the skills that are looked for on IQ tests.

Click to expand...

This for sure.

Not with no other information, not really. 100 is average. And we don't know anything about that individual's scores on the various domains that comprise the score. Great working memory? Poor verbal? Sure, someone with 140 has more of "something" but again, we don't know how he got there. She probably has more of something that we are measuring than the person with 100 but whether or not that something translates into "can learn to find water quicker" - maybe maybe not. And we have to look at the host of other factors that influence performance.

Saying that 140 is just smarter than 100 is not, IMO, really very helpful. It s more helpful to talk about superior reasoning skills as measured by..whatever measure, or superior performance on such and such a measure, which we know to be correlated with superior performance in another area. And, numbers are reported in ranges anyway, because we know there is error.