Re: Redlining

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

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.