From: IN%"ichudov@algebra.com" 11-DEC-1996 23:46:57.12
I would appreciate if some attorney on this list shed some light on the legal definition of discrimination.
I am not an attorney by any means, but I have looked over the Griggs vs Power decision (which effectively outlawed the use of most standardized tests, such as IQ tests, for employment purposes). A means of deciding on employment is discriminatory if the following are both true: A. Under it, members of a protected minority do worse; B. It has not been shown to be _specifically_ relevant to a job. Please note the second one; this means, effectively, that if you haven't done a full study of people who have done the job and correlated their performance with their scores on the test, it may be discriminatory. You can't use the simple information that an IQ test score is correlated with essentially all job performance measures yet done on any jobs not intended for the mentally retarded. Obviously, this task can't be done by anyone but the largest employers, and they are generally hindered in doing so by: A. Being governments or government contractors, and thus susceptible to political pressure; B. Having unions which object to any job performance measures. I'd appreciate any lawyerly comments that contradict me, particularly in view of some later (and saner) Supreme Court rulings on the matter. -Allen P.S. Please note that we cannot yet tell if the racial differences in IQ are environmental or a mixture of environmental and genetic; I believe they are purely environmental, but there is about as much evidence for this belief as there is for God's existence (something I also believe in).
E. Allen Smith wrote:
From: IN%"ichudov@algebra.com" 11-DEC-1996 23:46:57.12
I would appreciate if some attorney on this list shed some light on the legal definition of discrimination.
[snip]
P.S. Please note that we cannot yet tell if the racial differences in IQ are environmental or a mixture of environmental and genetic; I believe they are purely environmental, but there is about as much evidence for this belief as there is for God's existence (something I also believe in).
Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument, but you can reason it out yourself if you give attention to some things that don't make it into most discussions on this topic. Example: Environment has a profound effect on a person's mind (outlook, perceptions, attitudes, moods, etc.), and thereby has a significant, if indirect effect on that person's hormone production (quantity, balance). Those hormone productions have more effect on the body and brain long- term than any other influence I can think of. And believe it or not, in some (perhaps unusual) cases, unexpected changes in hormone production can happen later in life as well, not just during the "development" years. And I'm not talking about decreased production either.
Dale Thorn wrote:
E. Allen Smith wrote:
From: IN%"ichudov@algebra.com" 11-DEC-1996 23:46:57.12
I would appreciate if some attorney on this list shed some light on the legal definition of discrimination.
[snip]
P.S. Please note that we cannot yet tell if the racial differences in IQ are environmental or a mixture of environmental and genetic; I believe they are purely environmental, but there is about as much evidence for this belief as there is for God's existence (something I also believe in).
Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument, but you can reason it out yourself if you give attention to some things that don't make it into most discussions on this topic.
Example: Environment has a profound effect on a person's mind (outlook, perceptions, attitudes, moods, etc.), and thereby has a significant, if indirect effect on that person's hormone production (quantity, balance). Those hormone productions have more effect on the body and brain long- term than any other influence I can think of.
And believe it or not, in some (perhaps unusual) cases, unexpected changes in hormone production can happen later in life as well, not just during the "development" years. And I'm not talking about decreased production either.
Dale, I am sorry if I sound rather harsh, but this is a typical example how real statistical research is replaced by politicized bullshit. How to test a null hypothesis that differences in IQ between whites and blacks are at least partially a result of genetic differences and are not explained by "environment" solely? All this "environment" stuff is rather easy to test and control for: take two groups of children -- one from one race, another from another race, who live in essentially the same conditions. Then compare the average IQs and check statistical validity of your samples. There was one study. They took a number of white adopted children and a number of black adopted children, and made sure that they controlled for other conditions such as adopted parents' income, etc. Guess what was the result of IQ tests of children? - Igor.
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
E. Allen Smith wrote:
Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument, Example: Environment has a profound effect on a person's mind (outlook, perceptions, attitudes, moods, etc.), and thereby has a significant, if indirect effect on that person's hormone production (quantity, balance). And believe it or not, in some (perhaps unusual) cases, unexpected changes in hormone production can happen later in life as well, not just during the "development" years. And I'm not talking about decreased
I am sorry if I sound rather harsh, but this is a typical example how real statistical research is replaced by politicized bullshit.
There is *no* more real research that the research I do myself, and know about myself: 1) I have generally tested in the top 1/000 of one percent of the population in "intelligence", and 2) I have expended considerable effort in personal study and experiments with what the human body is capable of under given circumstances. I have rubbed elbows with the world's most well-conditioned people (physically), for one, and have learned (for two) how to never get sick again (21 years running).
How to test a null hypothesis that differences in IQ between whites and blacks are at least partially a result of genetic differences and are not explained by "environment" solely?
I hope I didn't give the wrong impression - genetics are certainly a factor in anything human, however, environment has an overwhelming influence on subsequent development. It's not 100% to 0%, in other words.
All this "environment" stuff is rather easy to test and control for: take two groups of children -- one from one race, another from another race, who live in essentially the same conditions. Then compare the average IQs and check statistical validity of your samples. There was one study. They took a number of white adopted children and a number of black adopted children, and made sure that they controlled for other conditions such as adopted parents' income, etc. Guess what was the result of IQ tests of children?
I hope I don't regret saying this, but the above study has a far greater chance of being "politicized bullshit" than anything I'm likely to say, even when it's not from my personal experience. Get serious, Igor. How the devil are you going to evaluate the fairness, honesty, and other attributes of such a study? Do you know the researchers? If you were evaluating the integrity of a University study on the sexual preferences of a Tsetse fly, there is a reasonable possibility of taint in such an innocuous study, due to the grant money and how the outcome data can leverage other monies, etc., but a study of Black -vs- White IQ's? I wouldn't read such a study unless I were stranded on a desert island with nothing else to do. I'd be better off reading something more relevant to real life, such as the power struggles between the ADL and Willis Carto, or Fred Goldman and O.J. Simpson, whatever.
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
E. Allen Smith wrote:
Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument, Example: Environment has a profound effect on a person's mind (outlook, perceptions, attitudes, moods, etc.), and thereby has a significant, if indirect effect on that person's hormone production (quantity, balance). And believe it or not, in some (perhaps unusual) cases, unexpected changes in hormone production can happen later in life as well, not just during the "development" years. And I'm not talking about decreased
I am sorry if I sound rather harsh, but this is a typical example how real statistical research is replaced by politicized bullshit.
There is *no* more real research that the research I do myself, and know about myself: 1) I have generally tested in the top 1/000 of one percent of the population in "intelligence", and 2) I have expended considerable effort in personal study and experiments with what the human body is capable of under given circumstances. I have rubbed elbows with the world's most well-conditioned people (physically), for one, and have learned (for two) how to never get sick again (21 years running).
Dale, the "bullshit" I referred to was not yours, it was something that you mentioned, so do not take it personally. I read your messages with interest.
How to test a null hypothesis that differences in IQ between whites and blacks are at least partially a result of genetic differences and are not explained by "environment" solely?
I hope I didn't give the wrong impression - genetics are certainly a factor in anything human, however, environment has an overwhelming influence on subsequent development. It's not 100% to 0%, in other words.
Absolutely agree. Another problem in measuring "environment" is that it is rather hard to quantify.
All this "environment" stuff is rather easy to test and control for: take two groups of children -- one from one race, another from another race, who live in essentially the same conditions. Then compare the average IQs and check statistical validity of your samples. There was one study. They took a number of white adopted children and a number of black adopted children, and made sure that they controlled for other conditions such as adopted parents' income, etc. Guess what was the result of IQ tests of children?
I hope I don't regret saying this, but the above study has a far greater chance of being "politicized bullshit" than anything I'm likely to say, even when it's not from my personal experience. Get serious, Igor. How the devil are you going to evaluate the fairness, honesty, and other attributes of such a study? Do you know the researchers?
It is a good question. To me, the study can be done by the worst assholes on the Earth. As long as their data can be verified and their methodology is known, I have no problem with personal biases of researchers. - Igor.
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
E. Allen Smith wrote:
Dale, the "bullshit" I referred to was not yours, it was something that you mentioned, so do not take it personally. I read your messages with interest.
Confucius say "To him that taketh offense, let him also take the gate". (Sorry for the stupid pun, and I always assume the non-personal, but, the subject begged for clarification. I feel very limited in my communication, given what I am thinking and trying to express it clearly in English syntax.) [snip]
Absolutely agree. Another problem in measuring "environment" is that it is rather hard to quantify.
I would love to head up such a study, but with a difference: Instead of doing purely passive research, which may have only an academic audience (never minding the occasional Bell Curve etc. book), I would like to impress my own training methods on the subjects, to see what their physical and mental capacities really are (as far as my abilities go, anyway), rather than simply watch. It would be nearly impossible (actually, probably impossible) in the USA to raise Black children and totally isolate them from the mental awareness that a large segment of the population has judgements about them having to do with their race. Very sensitive people such as myself (and perhaps the Black children under study as well?) know all too well the instant(!) impact that such a realization and subsequent awareness has on a person's conscious- ness (self-image, confidence et al), and how debilitating that awareness can be in real life. I don't think the studies reflect that. Then again, to play Devil's Advocate for the studies, perhaps the studies just can't be that broad in their scope, but, such a sensitive issue demands it. [snip]
It is a good question. To me, the study can be done by the worst assholes on the Earth. As long as their data can be verified and their methodology is known, I have no problem with personal biases of researchers.
There are so many factors, including (but not limited to) the unknown agenda(s) of the senior persons in the money chain at the colleges, think tanks, foundations, you get the picture.
Mr. Thorn wrote:
P.S. Please note that we cannot yet tell if the racial differences in IQ are environmental or a mixture of environmental and genetic; I believe they are purely environmental, but there is about as much evidence for this belief as there is for God's existence (something I also believe in). Example: Environment has a profound effect on a person's mind (outlook, perceptions, attitudes, moods, etc.), and thereby has a significant, if indirect effect on that person's hormone production (quantity, balance). Those hormone productions have more effect on the body and brain long- term than any other influence I can think of.
I bet the problem is even simpler than that. Look at studies that correlate nutrition with grades/learning. Look at "inner city" dietary habits of 3 to 5 year old children (and any other "under performing" group). I'd bet $20 on the correlation. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
snow wrote:
Mr. Thorn wrote:[snip]
Example: Environment has a profound effect on a person's mind (outlook, perceptions, attitudes, moods, etc.), and thereby has a significant, if indirect effect on that person's hormone production (quantity, balance). Those hormone productions have more effect on the body and brain long- term than any other influence I can think of.
I bet the problem is even simpler than that. Look at studies that correlate nutrition with grades/learning. Look at "inner city" dietary habits of 3 to 5 year old children (and any other "under performing" group). I'd bet $20 on the correlation.
Not a bad point. Theoretically, you can't buy smokes and liquor with food stamps etc., but really, if you stand in a checkout line and see what people *can* get with their handouts, it's, uh, impressive.
At 10:31 PM -0600 12/12/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
All this "environment" stuff is rather easy to test and control for: take two groups of children -- one from one race, another from another race, who live in essentially the same conditions. Then compare the average IQs and check statistical validity of your samples.
There was one study. They took a number of white adopted children and a number of black adopted children, and made sure that they controlled for other conditions such as adopted parents' income, etc.
Guess what was the result of IQ tests of children?
Ah, but the rub is factoring in cultural factors which remain. As an example, a black child raised under similar socioeconomic conditions to, say, a Jewish or Chinese child will still be to some extent a product of his culture. (In fact, even a black child raised in a white neighborhood by adoptive white parents will still have some a different learning experience than a white child raised in the same environment. If not initially, eventually.) I'm not saying this to "defend" any particular ethnic or racial group in this IQ debate, just to point out that cultural factors are not so easily separable in the way Igor describes. (For the curious, I am persuaded that there are minimal differences in "intelligence" between the several or many races, but that cultural and sociological factors strongly affect upbringing, learning, interest in doing well in school, ability on standardized tests, success in business matters, and so on.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Timothy C. May wrote:
At 10:31 PM -0600 12/12/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
All this "environment" stuff is rather easy to test and control for: take two groups of children -- one from one race, another from another race, who live in essentially the same conditions. Then compare the average IQs and check statistical validity of your samples.
There was one study. They took a number of white adopted children and a number of black adopted children, and made sure that they controlled for other conditions such as adopted parents' income, etc.
Guess what was the result of IQ tests of children?
Ah, but the rub is factoring in cultural factors which remain. As an example, a black child raised under similar socioeconomic conditions to, say, a Jewish or Chinese child will still be to some extent a product of his culture.
(In fact, even a black child raised in a white neighborhood by adoptive white parents will still have some a different learning experience than a white child raised in the same environment. If not initially, eventually.)
I'm not saying this to "defend" any particular ethnic or racial group in this IQ debate, just to point out that cultural factors are not so easily separable in the way Igor describes.
(For the curious, I am persuaded that there are minimal differences in "intelligence" between the several or many races, but that cultural and sociological factors strongly affect upbringing, learning, interest in doing well in school, ability on standardized tests, success in business matters, and so on.)
A good point. I personally think that whatever we find -- whether there are genetic differences or not -- is not terribly important since one can make the most money by judging individual people by their merit. It is an interesting academic question, but for a businessman (absent anti-discrimination laws) it is not very relevant. - Igor.
(For the curious, I am persuaded that there are minimal differences in "intelligence" between the several or many races, but that cultural and sociological factors strongly affect upbringing, learning, interest in doing well in school, ability on standardized tests, success in business matters, and so on.)
--Tim May
Just as there are differences in physical attributes between races, so to are there are differences in the brain between races, and even for genetic enclaves within races (and sexes which genetically, contain greater differences than between races). However, it has been my experience that individual differences exceed racial differences making the whole race vs. anything discussion a waste of time. i.e people should be judged as individuals not as members of one race or another, because that is where the most useful discrimination lays. The only time as-a-race attributes matter is when you are setting public policy for an-entire-race, which in my opinion should never be done. Set the rudder of your public policy by the correlation between the statistical attributes that you are trying to address, rather than what may or may not be a real correlation between those attributes and race. -Julian (proff@suburbia.net)
proff@suburbia.net writes:
Just as there are differences in physical attributes between races, so to are there are differences in the brain between races, and even for genetic enclaves within races (and sexes which genetically, contain greater differences than between races). However, it has been my experience that individual differences exceed racial differences making the whole race vs. anything discussion a waste of time. i.e people should be judged as individuals not as members of one race or another, because that is where the most useful discrimination lays.
That's a very good point, Julian, but sometimes the circumstances force us to used "appled epistemology" in less than the ideal conditions, or sometimes we just make up cutesy hypotheticals, complete with ASCII art: 1. Suppose that you have to consider two individuals, Al and Bob, and all you're allowed to know is that Al is white and Bob is black. You must make a bet as to a) which one is smarter, b) which one is physically stronger. You can't learn any additional information about them other than the color of their skin. How do you bet? 2. Suppose that you're walking in the middle of a deserted street in the TRUCK middle of the night in an industrial neighborhood. You see a S \ / S truck coming from the other side. You also notice that there i S i are only two people around, standing on the opposite d t d sidewalks. You'll have to pass close to one of the two e P1 r P2 e people to avoid being hit by the truck. P1 and P2 look the w e w same, moderately menacing, are dressed the same, have no a e a obivious business standing here in the middle of the night, l t l but P1 is white and P2 is black. Are you going to step right k / \ k or left to yield to the truck? (Disregard the reasonable YOU assumption that P1 and P2 are working together. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
proff@suburbia.net writes:
Just as there are differences in physical attributes between races, so to are there are differences in the brain between races, and even for genetic enclaves within races (and sexes which genetically, contain greater differences than between races). However, it has been my experience that individual differences exceed racial differences making the whole race vs. anything discussion a waste of time. i.e people should be judged as individuals not as members of one race or another, because that is where the most useful discrimination lays.
That's a very good point, Julian, but sometimes the circumstances force us to used "appled epistemology" in less than the ideal conditions, or sometimes we just make up cutesy hypotheticals, complete with ASCII art:
1. Suppose that you have to consider two individuals, Al and Bob, and all you're allowed to know is that Al is white and Bob is black. You must make a bet as to a) which one is smarter, b) which one is physically stronger. You can't learn any additional information about them other than the color of their skin. How do you bet?
This is an unrealistic problem and a stupid situation.
2. Suppose that you're walking in the middle of a deserted street in the TRUCK middle of the night in an industrial neighborhood. You see a S \ / S truck coming from the other side. You also notice that there i S i are only two people around, standing on the opposite d t d sidewalks. You'll have to pass close to one of the two e P1 r P2 e people to avoid being hit by the truck. P1 and P2 look the w e w same, moderately menacing, are dressed the same, have no a e a obivious business standing here in the middle of the night, l t l but P1 is white and P2 is black. Are you going to step right k / \ k or left to yield to the truck? (Disregard the reasonable YOU assumption that P1 and P2 are working together. :-)
It was my experience that if I go by a scary-looking group of black people, look into their eyes without fear and say "hi" and go further, they would never exhibit any sign of aggressiveness. They even get surprised. This always worked for me in Russia, whenever I had to pass a group of mobsters. I think that internal motivation for aggressive people has something to do with sexual hormones and the need to subdue their victims, so nothing attracts them more than exhibition of fear. I would definitely think it is safer to actually go to the right, even if you assume that P2 has some sinister thoughts. Then again, personal experiences are not a good replacement for statistics. - Igor.
participants (7)
-
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
E. Allen Smith -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
proff＠suburbia.net -
snow -
Timothy C. May