Re: Redlining

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

E. Allen Smith wrote:
> From:   IN%"dthorn@gte.net"  "Dale Thorn" 13-DEC-1996 00:55:54.44
> >It is possible to understand intelligence as "pattern matching" skills,
> >without having to have attendant math and statistics to define it more
> >precisely or clinically. This understanding (if you have it) is the key
> >to knowing that Black persons do *not* have less IQ than White persons,
> >regardless of the standardized tests.  Something I know about, as I've
> >scored in the top 1/1000 of one percent, etc.

> Umm... so have I, and I've also done some extensive reading on
> the subject. The IQ tests in question do a good job (better than any
> other tests - to study & compare you've got to have some sort of test,
> and an IQ test doesn't see what color you are) at correlating with
> things such as job performance, educational success (e.g., GPA),
> likelihood even within given racial groups of being in poverty, etcetera.

I have not associated closely with any Black persons since 1981-1983, but
at that time, when I had worked with several such persons in Los Angeles,
in close quarters (me being the only White person), I was profoundly
impressed with the diversity and complexity of the issue (I was curious
about the issue due to my circumstances, although I certainly did not
mention it) in dealing with real people.  My experience tells me that
persons who administer intelligence tests and other related tests, or
persons who subscribe to study of such things, should get up close to
(for example) Black persons for an extended period of time, and I think
they (the White persons) would then seriously question any test results
which showed a consistent superiority for Whites.
 
> >Nice that you have good intuition on this point, however, the big question
> >in your paragraph is not wherefore the genetic determinant, rather, it is
> >the understanding of intelligence in its overall context, which I dare say
> >most researchers in that field are probably ill-equipped to grasp.

> Actually, my conclusions re: genetic differences are an educated
> guess... just one that isn't currently testable. My guess comes from such
> factors as that some groups that, to all appearances, have high IQs are
> actually pretty closely related to some groups that have low IQs; take
> hispanics (mixed caucasian and (via American Indian) asian ancestry).
> The debates over what is intelligence, etcetera are quite
> thoroughly ongoing in the field in question; multiple books have been
> written on the subject.

I have recently (Oct. 1996) more-or-less inherited three half-Navajo
children, upon the death of their father (mother died 1993).  The kids
are 9, 11, and 13.  I have described to various people (schoolteachers,
parents, computer programmers, and so on) that raising kids of this age,
at this point in my life, is no more difficult than just living my own
life without them.  Getting past the emotional weaknesses that can
hobble you as a parent or guardian is paramount, and once you do that,
the rest is a cakewalk.  But what I really wanted to say was that my
experience with these children now (whom I didn't know until mid-1996)
has convinced me more than ever that intelligence is not only not
primarily genetic, but may also be recoverable to a large extent up to
the beginning of the teen years, if not beyond that.  I would guess that
children from most any background, young enough and lacking actual
physical brain damage or extremely severe psychological trauma, can
probably be brought up to the point where they can perform on an equal
level with the best our society has to offer.

The main and overwhelming factor in developing children who can accomplish
at a superior level is the personal attention of a caregiver, and what
that attention consists of.  There are some things you can read about
in a book and guess what they mean, and there are some things you can
know when you're staring them in the face...