cheka.
4th April 2019, 09:36 PM
sowell/jews explain why black iq test scores are lies ???
selected clips below from long article. blatant lies and ridiculous predictions -- wtf. over.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/27/archives/new-light-on-black-iq.html
New light on black I.Q.
By THOMAS SOWELLMARCH 27, 1977
Arthur Jensen was a little‐known scholar at the University of California in Berkeley eight years ago when he reported on studies concluding that blacks have lower I.Q.'s than whites primarily because of their genetic heritage. His name became synonymous with racism in liberal circles. Margaret Mead helped draw up a five‐point resolution criticizing the psychologist's work, which she termed “unspeakable.” William D. Wallace, director of Harvard University's health‐career programs, called his election an “endorsement of racism” and “damaging to the credibility of the A.A.A.S. in its work with minority scientists.” Wallace resigned from the association in protest.
For example, black orphans raised in white families have an average I.Q. of 106, according to a recent study by Prof. Sandra Scarr of the University of Minnesota.
In addition, several all‐black schools I have studied have consistently equaled or exceeded national norms on mental tests. One such school in Washington, D.C., had an average I.Q. of 111 in 1939‐15 years before the Supreme Court and the sociologists declared that separate schools are inherently inferior.
That school happens to be within walking distance of the Supreme Court, which virtually declared its existence impossible.
It is an important piece of evidence that a low I.Q. is an environmental phenomenon, which is why males are more affected by it. No alternative theory seems to explain why this difference should be peculiar to low‐I.Q. groups. Among black orphans raised in white families, no such pattern war found, indicating that it is no more racial than the average I.Q. level of blacks.
What about bias against the poor, the black or the “culturally deprived”? In one sense, that bias is admitted by virtually everyone, including Prof. Arthur Jensen, who has conducted research to document it. A detailed study of I.Q. test questions would also suggest cultural bias.
The tragedy is when test results are used by people who blindly regard them as measures of innate potential, and who use them to justify providing inferior education to children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
.....more than 70,000 school records was collected by a project which I directed at the Urban Institute, with the assistance of Janella Moore. The various data sources all led to the same conclusion: The European immigrant I.Q's then were virtually identical to black I.Q.'s now.
Black and Hispanic minorities have had no substantial relative socioeconomic rise before the present generation. It should be some time before dramatic I.Q. changes can be expected, but there are already some indications that this is likely.
Professor Arthur Jensen claims that what is peculiar about low black performance on mental tests is that it is lowest on abstract material—that is, material not dependent on specific cultural information, and therefore not explainable by “cultural deprivation.” Powerful as this evidence might seem at first, a glance at the history of other low‐I.Q. groups at various times and places shows a very similar pattern of poor performance on the abstract portions of mental tests.
Another seemingly ominous pattern cited by Jensen and others is the tendency of black children's I.Q.'s to decline as they grow older. Again, it is necessary to determine whether there is in fact anything peculiar about the black pattern before trying to “explain” that pattern, either genetically or environmentally. The same pattern is common among low‐I.Q. groups—it was observed in European immigrant children in the 20's and in native white American children in isolated mountain communities studied in the 1930's and 1940's. This pattern suggests nothing more than the continuing impact of early basics — including mental habits as well as basic knowledge.
selected clips below from long article. blatant lies and ridiculous predictions -- wtf. over.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/27/archives/new-light-on-black-iq.html
New light on black I.Q.
By THOMAS SOWELLMARCH 27, 1977
Arthur Jensen was a little‐known scholar at the University of California in Berkeley eight years ago when he reported on studies concluding that blacks have lower I.Q.'s than whites primarily because of their genetic heritage. His name became synonymous with racism in liberal circles. Margaret Mead helped draw up a five‐point resolution criticizing the psychologist's work, which she termed “unspeakable.” William D. Wallace, director of Harvard University's health‐career programs, called his election an “endorsement of racism” and “damaging to the credibility of the A.A.A.S. in its work with minority scientists.” Wallace resigned from the association in protest.
For example, black orphans raised in white families have an average I.Q. of 106, according to a recent study by Prof. Sandra Scarr of the University of Minnesota.
In addition, several all‐black schools I have studied have consistently equaled or exceeded national norms on mental tests. One such school in Washington, D.C., had an average I.Q. of 111 in 1939‐15 years before the Supreme Court and the sociologists declared that separate schools are inherently inferior.
That school happens to be within walking distance of the Supreme Court, which virtually declared its existence impossible.
It is an important piece of evidence that a low I.Q. is an environmental phenomenon, which is why males are more affected by it. No alternative theory seems to explain why this difference should be peculiar to low‐I.Q. groups. Among black orphans raised in white families, no such pattern war found, indicating that it is no more racial than the average I.Q. level of blacks.
What about bias against the poor, the black or the “culturally deprived”? In one sense, that bias is admitted by virtually everyone, including Prof. Arthur Jensen, who has conducted research to document it. A detailed study of I.Q. test questions would also suggest cultural bias.
The tragedy is when test results are used by people who blindly regard them as measures of innate potential, and who use them to justify providing inferior education to children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
.....more than 70,000 school records was collected by a project which I directed at the Urban Institute, with the assistance of Janella Moore. The various data sources all led to the same conclusion: The European immigrant I.Q's then were virtually identical to black I.Q.'s now.
Black and Hispanic minorities have had no substantial relative socioeconomic rise before the present generation. It should be some time before dramatic I.Q. changes can be expected, but there are already some indications that this is likely.
Professor Arthur Jensen claims that what is peculiar about low black performance on mental tests is that it is lowest on abstract material—that is, material not dependent on specific cultural information, and therefore not explainable by “cultural deprivation.” Powerful as this evidence might seem at first, a glance at the history of other low‐I.Q. groups at various times and places shows a very similar pattern of poor performance on the abstract portions of mental tests.
Another seemingly ominous pattern cited by Jensen and others is the tendency of black children's I.Q.'s to decline as they grow older. Again, it is necessary to determine whether there is in fact anything peculiar about the black pattern before trying to “explain” that pattern, either genetically or environmentally. The same pattern is common among low‐I.Q. groups—it was observed in European immigrant children in the 20's and in native white American children in isolated mountain communities studied in the 1930's and 1940's. This pattern suggests nothing more than the continuing impact of early basics — including mental habits as well as basic knowledge.