Rich, Black, Flunking • Hacker News Board

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#141

Post by billswift » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 11:24 AM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #23

Best quote: "'I find it useless to argue with people like Ogbu,' says Urban League educational fellow Ronald Ross, himself a former school superintendent. 'We know what the major problems in this school system are: racism, lack of funding, and unqualified teachers.' Although Shaker Heights is in fact an integrated, well-funded, and well-staffed school district, Ross is nonetheless convinced that it suffers from other…

Peers are almost always a stronger impact on people than their parents are. Read Judith Harris's "The Nurture Assumption". The single strongest influence is genetic, roughly 50%, next is peer group, third is general cultural environment, further down is parental influence (note that this assumes fairly normal family life, abuse or serious neglect increases impact of parents). The best way parents can influence their children for the better is by careful selection of neighborhood for their children's peers.

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#142

Post by billswift » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 11:34 AM UTC

jbm wrote: post #48

thras wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've seen precious little research? I assume you've actually looked? Read things like The Bell Curve, etc.?

I can't say with certainty now, but when I was a genetics student in a fairly decent University, I remember we laughed at "The Bell Curve". It wasn't considered classic scientific reading. There are a million places to start if you want to find a critique, but you can start with Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".

"Mismeasure of Man" was propaganda written by a Communist paleontologist who knew next to nothing of psychometrics.

EDIT: Yes I'm a bit bitter about it, I read it and believed it for years, before learning better. I don't like wasting my time and I HATE being lied to (and even more being taken in).

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#143

Post by billswift » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 11:45 AM UTC

miloshh wrote: post #31

thras wrote: post #20

Biological explanations, while non-PC, do a rather good job of explaining the available evidence.

Not really - blacks from Africa and the Carribean do very well academically. It is only the American blacks that do poorly. They have the same biology and often a better starting line than the immigrants. Why is that?

IQ is roughly 50% genetic; school success is probably roughly 50% IQ (personal guesstimate). So my rough guess is about ONE-QUARTER of the DIFFERENCE in school success BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS is genetic. Hard work, and consistent work even more, make a big difference in practical success - in school or business. EDIT: I meant the differences between fairly normal levels of school success above - the difference between low achievers and the very best is probably more than 50% influenced by IQ

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#144

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 1:44 PM UTC

nvoorhies wrote: post #118

steveklabnik wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were talking about $300k from a two-income household. Not that it makes you middle class, but that $100k-$150k bracket is fairly large.

The data is per-household.

Well then. I guess I can't read. My bad.

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#145

Post by JabavuAdams » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 1:59 PM UTC

hughprime wrote: post #92

tome wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wondered what that meant when I read it. Having discovered Clarence Thomas was a Supreme Court judge doesn't help either. What did the man do wrong?

He dared to have political views which differed from those of the black establishment. Like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, if he was a Democrat he'd have a road in every town named after him.

Colin Powell is the guy who stood up at the UN, looked America in the eye, and sold them the lie.

I can accept differing political views or party affiliations, but that man sold out his country. For shame!

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#146

Post by JabavuAdams » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 2:05 PM UTC

mahmud wrote: post #27

tezza wrote: post #19

I would like comment on the economic and social aspects[1] of this article. .. * I) Underacheivement as a group Defense Mechanism :: Some social-groups actively encourage what I call "Perennial-Underacheivement". This is in my opinion based on a group defense mechanism[2]. This defense mechanism is to ensure the weak and sick and those unable to care for themselves are not left behind. They value support for the less…

tezza, a most profound statement this is: Some social-groups actively encourage what I call "Perennial-Underacheivement". This is in my opinion based on a group defense mechanism[2]. But I must really disagree with you wrt to African American youth addressed in the article and its subject research: they came from well off families that didn't need to hold their children back. What you're speaking of is something wide…

Money can't buy culture. A poor kid with the right culture at home will do better than a richer kid with the wrong culture.

The good news is you can choose your culture. The bad news is, it's hard to overturn what you grew up with.

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#147

Post by JabavuAdams » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 2:27 PM UTC

Culture is the cause, though of course it's correlated with intelligence and income level, which is what confuses people.

Not all cultures are created equally. What your parents did in the home, and who your friends were matter much more than anything else.

Does a Jewish kid from a family of scientists and scholars have much in common with so-called "white trash"? They're both white, right?

Does the child of a black immigrant who comes from a culture of learning and achievement have much in common with some other random brown-skinned person? They're both brown, right?

The problem here isn't race. It's a loser culture.

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#148

Post by Chukwu » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 4:09 PM UTC

johnnybgoode wrote: post #134

Chukwu wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In hindsight, your question is far more stupid than his "idea". It's called the principle of insufficient reason; we aren't to suppose an a priori difference amongst type without proof - so the burden of proof is on the supposer. That you would ask me to explain why his idea is illogical, without first establishing that his claim is based in logic is justification enough for labeling your question stupid.

Haven't you simply assumed uniformity? By the way, you called it an "idea" first, not me. And it's a little disappointing for someone who's new here to be resorting to the use of insulting labels so quickly.

Yes, uniformity is assumed. Difference must be proven. Think for a moment - how could logic work the other way? Given a categorical set of entities, if we could assume prima facie that there were differences in an arbitrary subset of said set, our categorical heading would be meaningless! For you have derived a contradiction before you even started; Set of A properties, subset of set have not A property, wtf... This is basic. I would hope that if someone offers up an explanation for some event, that they would have taken the time to be sure that their explanation is rational. If they haven't, I am well within my bounds to call that explanation what it is - stupid and illogical - regardless of how long I have had an account on this forum. And in that regard, how can you be sure I haven't been an avid reader of this forum since its inception? And what does it matter...? As to the "" around idea; that was meant to convey the notion that this isn't HIS idea, nor is it a new one. You can google eugenics for an eye-opening history lesson on his "idea".

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#149

Post by randallsquared » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 7:08 PM UTC

mahmud wrote: post #25

randallsquared wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I hope you don't have kids" is, as far as I can see, very nearly the worst thing you can say to someone, if you mean it seriously. So far, everyone dies, but at least there's a chance that part of them will live on through their children; saying you'd prefer that they never have any legacy is even worse than flatly wishing they'd die.

"I hope you don't have kids" could have two completely different meanings: 1) I hope you're not a parent at the moment. and 2) I hope you never conceive! The first is a lament over the fate of any children that the addressed might have parented. The later is wishing ill fate upon the addressed.

could have two completely different meanings

Ah, I actually had missed the sense in which yardie might have meant "I hope you don't already have kids", and they've actually said that that's how it was meant (approximately), so I was a bit out of line, above.

Re: Rich, Black, Flunking

#150

Post by philwelch » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 8:15 PM UTC

lionhearted wrote: post #139

philwelch wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating two distinct concepts. By the genetic definition, a 3/4 European 1/4 African would be white. By the social definition, a 3/4 European 1/4 African would be black.

According to whom? My roommate in college was half-Haitian half-Portugese and identified more as European. My near 100% African-American buddy I played cards with identified himself as fully black. A half-Carib half-French (black skin tone) girl I knew identified as French. In London, a good friend who is half-Arabic half-Indian identifies equally as Arabic and Indian. My three-quarters Chinese one-quarter Japanese f…

Popular perception of race among Americans. The "one-drop rule" is widely attested, and for the most part is still true.

This can and does vary from country to country--mixed-race Brazilians are considered white in Brazil, but black if they immigrate to the United States.