I asked about your "going backwards" comment. You evidently based it on the level of racial tension you perceive. Fine.
As to changes in people's attitudes trumping (is that OK to say?) genetics and the aggregate statistics that define different racial groups, color me (is that OK to say?) skeptical. Imagine that each individual was treated strictly on their own merits. Racial statistical aggregates tell us the result will be a disproportionate representation (relative to population %) of blacks in fields requiring higher levels of IQ (fewer) and in conditions of personal and social pathology (more).
Kathryn Paige Harden is a bit late to the party. Google "boost IQ and scholastic" and you'll be directed to Arthur R. Jensen's seminal 1969 article (124 pages including references): "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Yep, that's not a misprint: 1969. It's all in there and has been for over 50 years and counting (and has been suppressed and hidden behind academic/journalistic paywalls for just as long). Happy reading!
You're funny. You misread Kathryn Paige Harden's article, if that's all You took from it.
Like I 'said,' people will believe what they wanna believe. And although I've not read Jensen's article, I'm familiar with the theory. It's a theory. Going by the introduction I'd be curious how much his ideas on genetics would be seen through the lens of current science. I may, or may not, take the trouble.
When You get into talking about being hidden and suppressed, I begin to wonder. It was easy enough to find, so mebbe it's not hidden but just being ignored. Whether that's for good reason or not is a different question. The bigger point is that current state-of-the-art in genetics isn't far enough along to say what role that plays for certain. Sorry, but that's a fact.
I don't like to repeat myself, but I will. You continue to ignore the point about IQ not being a limiting factor in a lotta ways. Yeah, if You're talking the Olympics of intelligence, then the highest IQ will win. Day-to-day success isn't at the level of the Olympics. And the person with the highest IQ rarely wins in that race, believe it or not.
I asked about your "going backwards" comment. You evidently based it on the level of racial tension you perceive. Fine.
As to changes in people's attitudes trumping (is that OK to say?) genetics and the aggregate statistics that define different racial groups, color me (is that OK to say?) skeptical. Imagine that each individual was treated strictly on their own merits. Racial statistical aggregates tell us the result will be a disproportionate representation (relative to population %) of blacks in fields requiring higher levels of IQ (fewer) and in conditions of personal and social pathology (more).
Kathryn Paige Harden is a bit late to the party. Google "boost IQ and scholastic" and you'll be directed to Arthur R. Jensen's seminal 1969 article (124 pages including references): "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Yep, that's not a misprint: 1969. It's all in there and has been for over 50 years and counting (and has been suppressed and hidden behind academic/journalistic paywalls for just as long). Happy reading!
You're funny. You misread Kathryn Paige Harden's article, if that's all You took from it.
Like I 'said,' people will believe what they wanna believe. And although I've not read Jensen's article, I'm familiar with the theory. It's a theory. Going by the introduction I'd be curious how much his ideas on genetics would be seen through the lens of current science. I may, or may not, take the trouble.
When You get into talking about being hidden and suppressed, I begin to wonder. It was easy enough to find, so mebbe it's not hidden but just being ignored. Whether that's for good reason or not is a different question. The bigger point is that current state-of-the-art in genetics isn't far enough along to say what role that plays for certain. Sorry, but that's a fact.
I don't like to repeat myself, but I will. You continue to ignore the point about IQ not being a limiting factor in a lotta ways. Yeah, if You're talking the Olympics of intelligence, then the highest IQ will win. Day-to-day success isn't at the level of the Olympics. And the person with the highest IQ rarely wins in that race, believe it or not.
Skunk pissing. Not winnable, so I'll pass. (Kudos for mostly cleaning up the lingo—it's appreciated.)