http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124498,00.html

Well, the "PC" crowd is taking a page from George Wallace again: " Segregation Now, Segregation tomorrow..".

Is this a joke?
Black children aren't allowed IQ tests?


Holy fucking shit. What is this, 1920's?!

I'm not trying to justify the practice, but this is one of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situations. The Stanford-Binet and other I.Q. tests came under heavy fire in California in the 1970s (I was a student in the system at the time, graduating in 1981, and was I.Q. tested in 1975). The reason: Black students scored significantly lower than other ethnic/racial groups on the test, and there were accusations that 1) the test was racially/culturally biased; and 2) these low test scores were being used to channel large numbers of African American children into remedial/Special Education programs, thus stigmatizing them and denying them opportunity. Several attempts were made to come up with a 'non-culturally biased' version of the test (I remember looking at some of these questions; sex bias was considered a potential issue as well), and rather than endure the ongoing shitstorm of controversy, lawsuits, and accusations that Black students were being discriminated against on the basis of a flawed test, the state decided to cease using I.Q. scores as an indicator of academic/remedial needs except in rare circumstances (and not for African American students).

That having been said, I think it's nuts (not to mention probably unconstitutional) to have a clearly separate policy regarding African American students. If they are going to disallow the test for Blacks, then it should be disallowed for all, unless the parent signs some sort of waiver stating that they won't sue the state or the school district based on the results.

FYI, the state of California did not, even before this policy was enacted, I.Q. test all students; the test was only done at the request of teachers/counselors as a possible diagnostic indicator as to whether the child needed to be placed in remedial/special education, or talented/gifted or skipped a grade. In my own case, it was recommended that I skip 7th grade, but my parents declined to do so out of fears of socialization problems.

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

Well, the "PC" crowd is taking a page from George Wallace again: " Segregation Now, Segregation tomorrow..".

This has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with a bad law that needs to be changed. It does show the irony of 1979 racial politics and the ignorance of some people today but I see this being changed now that someone noticed. Thats why I love America.

It has everything to do with being "PC" and shows the pitfalls of affirmative action themed ideas in current times.

BTW, it isn't a law it was a ban placed by a liberal judge who took it upon himself to make policy(gee, does that sound familiar?).

Let me get this straight, because I'm trying to get over your actual bringing this topic up.

You're.. defending this law against so-called "liberals" who wish to see a change to allowing one thing for white kids, and one for blacks?

You.. think it's OK? Or are you just yelling at liberals for voicing themselves?

You're.. defending this law against so-called "liberals" who wish to see a change to allowing one thing for white kids, and one for blacks?
First, it isn't a law it is a ban on testing African Americans imposed by a liberal judge trying to set policy(such as the case in the whole gay marriage fiasco).

The whole idea behind the ban is that it wasn't fair to test African Americans because the test was culturally biased. It was political correctness head to toe.

Now then, I am not for the ban.

The ban was put in place by the "liberals", they are not the ones protesting. The ban is already allowing one thing for African Americans, and another for everyone else. In their misguided attempts to balance things they ended up doing exactly the opposite and exchanging one sort of segregation for another.

My own point of view is that this sort of double standard(and affirmative action in general) aimed at any one ethnic group doesn't solve any problems in that it presumes that that minority group is inferior and -needs- special measures just to compete.

What I want to know is how the hell is an IQ test culturally biased? I mean Jesus. I mean are math questions culturally biased? 1 black kid plus 1 pistol equals what tyrone? Thats right 5 to 10. Or perhaps is the test more like Mr and Mrs. Whitebread drive 55 MPH to the Sax 5th Ave. and they have to stop at the stop light at 5th and Watts. How long will they ave to wait in there lexus before Tyrone jacks there ass? Someone please clerify how tests are culturally biased? Either you can answer the questions or you can't. Either your a dumbass or your not. What does the color of your skin have to do with it?

Halo, it was the liberals that put that law in place....probably 99% of the population is against it, but some activist liberal judge took it upon himself to change the law for everyone. The judge's reasoning was that tests were made to assure black people fail (yeah right....)

Just like affirmative action, everyone hates it, yet theres always some asshole judge that keeps it legal.

Its a testament to how far we still have to go in relation to racial relationships in this country and true color blindness.

It is a testament to how much affirmative action and its ilk build barriers instead of taking them down, and at the same time serves as a great example of judges overstepping their bounds to create laws instead of just interpreting them.

Like I said.

Something really needs to be done about rogue judges imposing their will on the whole populace. They aren't even elected so they don't have any reprocusions for acting out of line. At least when a president or a member of legislator acts out of line they need to face voters, with judges they just sit there to they die or retire. Not to mentions judges have more power than the legislative and executive branch since they get the last word on everything.

"PC" crowd is taking a page from George Wallace again: " Segregation Now, Segregation tomorrow..".
Exactly how is that happening? The school was only going by statewide policy set in 1979. Nobody in this year, or even decade, has made set a new policy denying black children to take I.Q. tests.

One thing you need to remember, you got that from FOX news... can we say most conservative news station nation wide?

They aren't even elected so they don't have any reprocusions for acting out of line. Just FYI, this isn't the case in some states, including Texas, where judges are elected just like other state officials (in California, judges are initially appointed, and then must stand for re-election). This in no way prevents complete idiots from ending up on the bench; in Dallas we had the infamous Jack Hampton, who gave a lesser sentence to a man convicted of double homicide because he (the Judge) would be "hard put to give somebody life for killing a couple of queers.", and numerous other astonishingly stupid and/or biased judges courtesy of the will of the people ;). It's very common, btw, for these judges to run uncontested, and since voter apathy is pretty high for non-national elections, they're won, when there *is* more than one candidate on the ballot, by very small vote totals. Consequently, unless there is a large public outcry about a decision (and often not even then) elected incompetent judges usually stay on the bench for years as well.

The problems with the educational system in the state of California began in earnest with the passing of Proposition 13 in 1978, and subsequent defunding of the public schools due to a massive loss of tax revenue. At the time, California had one of the best public school systems in the country (it now has the worst). Pre Prop. 13, California public schools boasted a variety of innovative (for the times) programs including the MGM (Mentally Gifted Minors) and Special programs even in poorer public schools. Admission to these programs was *based on I.Q. test scores*. Because Blacks scored significantly lower on the I.Q. tests than other ethnic groups, they rarely were admitted into the 'prestige' programs (and were disproportionately channeled into remedial programs) and this caused a great deal of unrest (read lawsuits). Post 1978, *all* special programs were severely cut, and getting into them, where they still existed, became much more difficult.

Fox News, btw, is notorious for digging up examples of 'reverse discrimination', primarily so that they can scream about how evil and hypocritical 'those liberals' are. In this particular case, the judge's ruling was a not unreasonable response to a serious problem at the time (25 years ago!) that no-one seemed to know how to address - how to provide equal opportunity in the face of very *un*equal test scores and under the threat of continuous litigation (although a much more reasonable ruling would have been to prohibit their use entirely, as valuable as they can be). Unfortunately, in this case, it's proved a double edged sword; the woman in this case now lacks access to a tool which could qualify her son for the help he needs (the ruling likely having been dug up and used as an excuse to deny her son access, the real issue being lack of funding and a resistance by the school district to pony up for his therapy - I've seen it plenty ;) ).

For the person who asked, I.Q. tests have come a long way towards removing 'bias' (indeed, it's rare to see a *sentence* in one now, much less one containing cultural references), but some typical examples of concerns that folks had at the time about bias in math problems, for example, might be (sex bias) writing word problems that involved mechanical examples; or (racial/economic bias) using, say, tennis (pre Williams sisters ;) ) as the framework for setting up the same problem. In the case of logic and comprehension problems, using words or settings that are commonplace to white, but not to minority, culture, or which presuppose exposure to certain experiences can be considered bias. I actually run into this all the time where I currently teach, even though my subject is Biology; since I teach in an isolated town on the Mexican border, I find myself confronted with having to rewrite test questions all the time in order to compensate for the poor English fluency and astonishing lack of vocabulary of my students. They speak conversationally just fine, and know the material, but lack the depth of English vocabulary and fluency to understand the necessary complexity of some of the exam questions. Many Black urban students also grow up with incredibly impoverished vocabularies regardless of their raw intelligence and so still underperform on I.Q. tests as well, even with the changes that have been made to them.

Do I agree with withholding these tests based on race? Absolutely not. But if these tests are to be used, one has to be very careful what they are used for, as the sword of 'discrimination' claims cuts both ways. Apologies to all for the length of this post btw - I'm in that woozy post-deadline unwinding haze... ;)

Sincerely,
Nydia

It is bullshit to claim cultural bias.

You don't have to rewrite test questions because you have people of Hispanic origin in your classes, you have to rewrite test questions because there are people who don't speak English. African Americans from inner city backgrounds didn't have trouble with mechanical based word problems, or tennis based - inner city children period did.

To claim otherwise is to say that people of certain ethnic backgrounds are less intelligent or less knowledgable about the world at large than people belonging to other ethnicities regardless of outside influences.

Are you saying that?

Dear Cristo:

No, I'm not saying that at all. When I did TAG (Tejas Action Group, an after school program sponsored by Tejas Girl Scout Council) program for elementary school students in Dallas, I worked with materially and educationally impoverished kids from all racial/ethnic groups and they suffered similar deficiencies (but cultural differences did make themselves felt). However, one cannot look at many of those groups (people living on the U.S./Mexican border, or folks living in South Dallas, :) ) without recognizing that the former is 95% Hispanic, the latter is mostly Black, and that cultural, as well as economic, forces play a role in what they have been exposed to. Consequently, despite the progress that we have made, when one looks even to this day at data from large populations accumulated via standardized tests, statistically *it still falls out along racial lines*, regardless of how a given individual performs.

regardless of their raw intelligence I think that says it all. Less intelligent != less knowledgable about the world at large; you have lumped these together, when they don't necessarily correlate. Also, when you use the phrase: "knowledge of the world at large", whose world are you referring to? I'm not being flippant; this is where things begin to get, shall we say, sticky...

America, while it *is* the land of opportunity, is not a perfectly blended light brown culturally homogenous mixture with the only disparity being economic status, and not all Americans see, or comprehend, or value, the world and the scope of their opportunities in the same way. Many of my students (btw I assume you know that I teach community college, not public school) are very intelligent, but have never left "Los Dos Laredos"; the culture doesn't promote true fluency in English *or* Spanish, nor curiosity about the outside world (indeed, it actively discourages it, and I've watched repeatedly watched parents undermine their childrens ambitions for higher education here so that they won't have to leave Laredo). Consequently, despite their intelligence, they perform worse on some standardized tests than their level of education/fluency would normally indicate even based strictly on a socioeconomic basis. Interestingly, however, my Mexican national students (educated in the Mexican system), who cross to take classes in the U.S., have better composition skills and much better vocabularies than their U.S. counterparts, even if they are in Spanish and they must ask me frequently for the word for something in English; I suspect that the high level of motivation of these students plays a role here, as well as the great respect with which Mexican nationals treat the opportunity for higher education.

Similarly, I met some very bright local African-American kids (and played D & D with them on Sundays ;) ) when I was living in south central L.A. some 20 years ago; but they had never left the neighborhood they were born in and had a very narrow frame of reference. Moreover, the pressure to fit in, not to aspire to anything beyond the 'hood and its socially acceptable roles, is also there. My Black roomate at U.S.C. (who was a local girl on scholarships) complained bitterly about the social ostracism and abuse she received for her use of correct English, her high G.P.A., etc. She was accused of having an attitude, of being 'too good for them', when all she wanted was to get a decent education and aspire to a career in Public Administration. As much as we wish it didn't, culture *does* play a role, sometimes a negative one, in both the measured intelligence (by our flawed tools) and academic performance of some subpopulations (that often consist almost exclusively of one racial/ethnic group), and this has to be recognized (recognizing that one cannot make assumptions about someone's culture based on their race, either). Consequently, when we design intelligence or other standardized tests, we have to try to make them as life-experience neutral as possible; and bias is bias, whether it's cultural or linguistic or socioeconomic.

I want to make it *very* clear that I don't feel there is any difference in the intelligence, or the potential, of any individuals based on their racial/ethnic group or their socioeconomic level, that *anything* can be assumed about an individual based on their belonging to (insert ethnic group here); and that, yes, of course white and other students can and do suffer the effects of both economic and cultural deprivation with regards to education. My best female friend is a black, handicapped (endured cyclical surgeries as a child) single parent who made it through Yale on scholarship and works for a major IT firm now, pulling in over twice my salary; she had a very rough childhood but a father who both valued real education and encouraged her to believe that she could do anything she wished... and she has. She also lives in a nearly all white neighborhood in extreme North Dallas, and while she finds that frustrating, she also is frustrated with the cultural identity that the 'South Dallas' folks cling to. Why can't she be, as she has often said to me, 'just Janice?' I think that America has made tremendous strides in that direction; but to ignore the fact that very real cultural phenonema (as well as socioeconomic phenomena) continue to affect the lens through which different groups view what their *real* opportunities are and thus their attitude towards the purpose of education in the broadest sense (I have a LOT more to say on this topic, but it's 7 am and I'm getting very tired here, it's been about 40 hours since my head last hit the pillow, grade deadline day was yesterday :) ); and to ignore this is to ignore reality. I'll try to dig up some statistics tomorrow...

To close this long rambling mess, in the above case, back in 1979, bias *was* being claimed as the reason that minority, specifically Black, students were scoring significantly lower on the Stanford-Binet I.Q. test than white students (and thus were being funneled into remedial programs). Twenty-five years later, the plaintiff in this case is claiming bias because the school district *won't* let her son take an I.Q. test. I'd submit that in both cases, the plaintiffs were correct...

Sincerely,
Nydia

Nydia it's kinda funny that you are in a way advocating the judge's discision, discrimination in any way or form is wrong, no matter who you are discrimating against. If a lot of black people fail the test it's no one's fault but their own, tell them to study harder next time.

A test cannot but cultually biased, and it's sad that liberals feel that the best way to end discrimination is to keep reinsterting it into our society. After so many years people still cannot look past the color of your skin, we are all the same people inside, we should be tested on the same scale.

Let's just blame the liberals.

I'm with Crist0 on this one. It's their fault. Somehow. Always is.
My car broke down the other day. Fucking liberals.

rofl

Here's a good example of cultural bias on the IQ tests.

First you have understand, these tests are being administered to young kids, in the early stages of educational development. These are not well rounded peope with a variety of experiences. These are kids, who basically are just starting out to explore the world beyond their parents reach, the beginnings of adolescence.
Think about who YOU were at 12.

Now, lets say, for example, a question of the IQ test is Sofa is to Sitting as [Blank] is to [blank]
then the specific examples that normally go along in IQ tests.

If a kid hasnt ever heard the word "Sofa" or only marginally, is he at a distinct disadvantage to someone that uses or hears it on a daily basis? Does it mean that the spanish american kid is dumber than the white kid?
Are we measuring raw intelligence and potential? Or are we measuring assimulation into society?
Let the tests be honest.
ESPECIALLY if they are being used for tracking students and exposing them to upper level classes or being used to pigeonhole kids.

Does it mean that the spanish american kid is dumber than the white kid?

Why do you automatically assume that the Hispanic one will not realize what a sofa is but the Caucasian kid will?

Assuming they grow up in the same environment what could possibly be your reasoning behind that?

If you live in Brentwood and are Hispanic, odds are you will know what a sofa is just the same as your Caucasian/African American/Indian American neighbors will. If you live in a housing project you might not know what a sofa is, but that is irrelevant to your ethnicity.

If you want to say some Hispanic kids have trouble if they can't speak English that's all well and good and a valid point, however being Hispanic doesn't automatically mean they have problems with English so we should go make a separate test for everyone of that ethnic group.

These issues have absolutely nothing to do with -anyone's- ethnic background, they are environmental in nature.

Claiming otherwise doesn't empower these children, it holds them back and reinforces the idea(especially to them, imagine being told "Oh, you're Black, you don't get to take that test it is too hard for you so here's this one") that they are different because of the color of their skin in a society that is supposed to be based on the principle that we're all equal.

Saying that mistakes aren't made with the best of intentions in mind is pretty short sighted.

Take, for example, the accidental law in Virginia allowing people in certain lines of work to have Saturday or Sunday off:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/01/sundays.off.ap/index.html

As a side note, "Judge T.J. Markow granted an emergency 90-day injunction at the urging of several Virginia corporations". Now, isn't he just supposed to interpret those laws, and "take it upon himself to make policy".

See... judges interpret often contradictory laws, and many times have to block laws or legislation that turns out to be illegal due to other factors.

In the case above, the law is 100% legal- but it would cause problems with the cash flow- so it was halted.

Don't confuse a 90 day injunction with a permanent ban.

Yes, but is the test actually measuring Raw Intelligence as it claims? And is that test equal to all people taking it?
Thats the questions cultural bias addresses.

resoundingly, the answer if being heard as no, the test is not even. It is NOT a measure of raw intelligence.
Its measuring something else in many cases.

I have to wonder at the utility (or accuracy) of IQ tests in any case. I suppose they may help identify areas of knowledge that are in need of support from the school system, but I doubt they ever have been a true measure of someone's intelligence per se. I've never taken one, so I am open to suggestions otherwise. Just in my experience, some pretty smart people I've met have not scored that high while some who I consider pretty average claim to have scored high. *shrug*

We're not arguing about whether or not the test is equal, we're arguing about whether the basis for the different scores are ethnic in nature or socioeconomic in nature. Going a step further, we're arguing whether it is right to base adjustments to testing on the color of one's skin or the circumstances of children's upbringing.

If you want to stick to claiming it's people being African American or Hispanic that makes them have low scores go right ahead.

You should realize as you do it what it is that you are saying though.

How do you think you would do if I gave you an IQ test administered and created by someone who grew up in london and the test was based on local vernacular. How about if I gave you a test based on urban street dialect. Or a test riddled with spanish terms.
Abejas is to busy as quick is to _____

It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with culture.

You are describing socioeconomic conditions, not ethnic conditions.

I could succeed or fail at any of those tests whether I be African American, Pacific Islander, Caucasian or Native American.

You are confusing the term "culture" with ethnicity.

Caucasian is not a culture. African American is not a culture. Asian is not a culture.

1st- The Spanish for sofa is sofa

2nd- What the hell is it you keep refering to as Caucasian? and where did such use of the word originate? The average American Joe doesn't look like folks from the Caucasus to me.

3rd- Spaniards are not white?

What was the name of that sociologist who, after comparing IQ results of afro-carribean kids to that of caucasian kids, pronounced that - and wrote a book on - "White kids are smarter"?
And several years later was utterly owned on the evidence of culturally biased IQ examinations.

No idea who that reminds me of.



Not Crist0. Though.

No sir.

Sorry Crist0,
There IS different ethic cultures in America. You need evidence? walk into any high school cafeteria at lunch time.
People choose to naturally self segregate. White people have mostly white friends, black people have mostly black friends, asians with asians.
Now of course this is a by and large generalization, and of course there is great cross racial socialization, and with each generation that socialization grows larger and larger.

But you have to understand that different groups of people are products of their past and their cultures and not only who THEY are, but their parents are and the traditions and customs of their heritage.

To not acknowledge this, that the history and past of people of different races is VASTLY different from ours is to try to minimize it and pretend it didnt happen.
Take your Soma, be happy...
http://aztlan.net/lynching.jpg

What was the name of that sociologist who, after comparing IQ results of afro-carribean kids to that of caucasian kids, pronounced that - and wrote a book on - "White kids are smarter"?

What was the name of that Euro, you know, the clueless one who couldn't figure out what he was reading if it bit him in the ass?

Hey Halo, go buy yourself a clue.

Where did I say white kids are smarter?

Oh, that's right, nowhere.

I know Halo!

Maybe you could ignore the people claiming the opposite, take the person who is arguing that people aren't getting low test scores because they are of African American descent, and claim he's saying African Americans are less intelligent!


There IS different ethic cultures in America.

There most certainly are different cultures in America. You do know what socioeconomic means, right? Low test scores come with the environment they are brought up in, NOT their ethnic background.

You need to stop the racial stereotyping and look past the color of people's skin Lleauaric - it has nothing to do with how they score on tests.

Ok.. slowly now, put down the Marx book crist0.
All socio-strata is NOT economic.

Social environment comes in many cases with the culture you are born into. Traditions transcend wealth and upward social mobility. Just because a black family is successful doesnt mean they magically turn white and adopt carte blanche anglo culture en masse. People tend to retain a sense of identity and the farther away they move from cultural enclaves the harder they cling to the "old ways" and familar customs become more important to people.

btw, the only person who is associating race as a factor is you.
If its nature or nurture, the totality of the argument on my side is nurture. Innate capacity has nothing to do with low scores, In fact what we are saying is the potential of people is not being accuratly gauged and recognized.

Seems like your argument is all people are equal and have equal opportunity, and attempt to codify scores or take into account sociatal advantages is racism. The solution, according to you, seems to be ignore the problem and it will magically disappear.

'What was the name of that Euro, you know, the clueless one who couldn't figure out what he was reading if it bit him in the ass?'

- Never said I read it, mate.

LOELZ I GOT ONE UP ON U ROFLELZ

Don't confuse a 90 day injunction with a permanent ban.
Wouldn't dream of it. The circumstances are a bit different, though. The point is judges stick their nose into the law all of the time- that is pretty much their job, after all.

I like lines.

They are fun.

Never talk in paragraphs.

Organization is the devil.

Really it's not their job to stick there nose in and create new laws, or even enforce laws. The legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces them, judges are supposed to make sure the existing laws are working as intended. But yeah many judges are on power trips and theres nothing anyone can do about it ;-\

I like lines.

They are fun.

Never talk in paragraphs.

Organization is the devil

Is that titled 'The Ode to Lleauric' by any chance?!

its more of an ode to swifton :)

Really it's not their job to stick there nose in and create new laws, or even enforce laws. The legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces them, judges are supposed to make sure the existing laws are working as intended.Oh, agreed 100%. However, the issue with gay marriage or the right to a day of rest is an issue of the laws as they are written- they aren't creating new laws, just ruling on a weakness in the language of the laws as they were written. At the time, it was probably assumed to be a GIVEN that only men and women would try to get married, so the issue never came up until now.

As for enforcing the laws- they don't do that, either. The police/courts/juries are supposed to do that.

(edit) used the wrong verb

At least in California the law states specifically that only a man and a women can be married.

the only person who is associating race as a factor is you

You have absolutely no skill at comprehending what you read.

Its a testament to how far we still have to go in relation to racial relationships in this country and true color blindness.I don't think people in the US really want color blindness. People want an excuse.

Explain to me Ebonics and gangstah rap and all the bad atttitudes young African Americans harbor, especially when if anything they should be enjoying more prosperity. Instead they piss away all the hard won civil rights and freedoms previous generations literary died for. Blacks perhaps, once upon a time, used to want to be a unified part of the United States.The worked with pride with dreams and goals, but now it seems they gloify violence towards other races, themselves, and anything that resembles educated responcible thought. If anyone is keeping the word "nigger" alive, its the mass popular culture young African American's create for themselves and the fact that they alone seem to perpetuate it by calling their peers that slur. If Dr King was alive, its a good bet he would be disappointed. At least Bill Cosby is alive and still vocal.

Mexican Americans (term used VERY optimistically) love to come to this country yet don't seem to have much desire to participate in what is the basic foundation of living in the United States. I am talking about bothering to learn English, or even bothering to become naturalized and CONTRIBUTE. They stick with their own, and don't bother to learn the language of what is geographically their new home. Instead, the markets have to cater to them.

Asians Americans still seem to stick together frequently, especially Phillipinos, yet they do wish to participate in this country. Some asians actually look upon alot of other peoples living in this country with disdain, which does not exactly create a feeling of harmony.

Homosexuals. Whatever. its not even a question of race. If these people do their part, contribute, and behave like a good member of society, then really....what is the big deal? How people get their jollies or spend their private intimate time is not really anyone's business. Religion can be more intrusive than homosexuals. I have had plenty of people knock on my door and ask me to join such and such church or check out Jahova Witness, Church of Later Day Saints or whatever other means Humanity interprets faith. No one has knocked on my door and asked me to try to play for the other team. Typically, homosexuals annoy people only when they are too loud politically, and any demographic can do that. The nail that sticks up first gets beat down the hardest, squeaky wheel gets the grease or Insert_Random_Cliche_Here.

So, maybe these cultures can start blaming themselves for whatever precievied inequality or injustice is plaguing them. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail, yet very few people seem to think past blaming white people, or The Man, or someone other than themselves for decisions they themselves made. There are too many people living on this planet, exposed to a multitude of information in an era of scientific reason for people to claim to not be culpiable for their own actions. If there is such a thing as a bright side to this, Racisim at least now has become more of an excuse for ones own failure than a real, legitimate life and death struggle.

All socio-strata is NOT economic So true. Money only tends to create some common beliefs within a culture, but does not entirely shape it. Ossama Bin Ladin is a very wealthy man, yet I don't think he has much desire to hang out with Bill Gates or Bill Cosby even though they might be considered in close promixity as far as tax bracket. People believe what they believe because their parents or friends tell them its what is proper, even when its socially deviant and savage. Money doesn't create stupidity, but it usually does allow you to exercise stupidity more often and get away with it to boot.

Sorry for any spelling errors but I can't seem to find the spell checker on this.

Now that I have a bit more time..


the only person who is associating race as a factor is you.

Let's see, shall we?

My quotes involving ethnicity:


Low test scores come with the environment they are brought up in, NOT their ethnic background.


stop the racial stereotyping and look past the color of people's skin Lleauaric - it has nothing to do with how they score on tests.


I could succeed or fail at any of those tests whether I be African American, Pacific Islander, Caucasian or Native American.


we're arguing whether it is right to base adjustments to testing on the color of one's skin or the circumstances of children's upbringing.

If you want to stick to claiming it's people being African American or Hispanic that makes them have low scores go right ahead.

You should realize as you do it what it is that you are saying though.


These issues have absolutely nothing to do with -anyone's- ethnic background,


Why do you automatically assume that the Hispanic one will not realize what a sofa is but the Caucasian kid will?

Assuming they grow up in the same environment what could possibly be your reasoning behind that?


You don't have to rewrite test questions because you have people of Hispanic origin in your classes, you have to rewrite test questions because there are people who don't speak English. African Americans from inner city backgrounds didn't have trouble with mechanical based word problems, or tennis based - inner city children period did.


My own point of view is that this sort of double standard(and affirmative action in general) aimed at any one ethnic group doesn't solve any problems in that it presumes that that minority group is inferior and -needs- special measures just to compete.

Now then, Professor(please tell me you aren't going to teach any sort of english/literature), that certainly looks like I've said quite the opposite of what you claim.

Let's take a look at some other quotes, to address the part of your accusation that says no one else is using ethnic background as an issue:

You for example:


If a kid hasnt ever heard the word "Sofa" or only marginally, is he at a distinct disadvantage to someone that uses or hears it on a daily basis? Does it mean that the spanish american kid is dumber than the white kid?


To not acknowledge this, that the history and past of people of different races is VASTLY different from ours is to try to minimize it and pretend it didnt happen.


Just because a black family is successful doesnt mean they magically turn white and adopt carte blanche anglo culture en masse.


Seems like your argument is all people are equal and have equal opportunity, and attempt to codify scores or take into account sociatal advantages is racism.

Why thank you ever so much for trying to tell me what my solution is, even though I never gave one and only touched upon the wrongness of stereotyping based on ethnic background.

So, basically..you are batting .000 at the moment(I used a sports analogy because I thought it would make more sense to you after seeing the trouble you had understanding my earlier posts).

Dear Crist0:
A person's culture has more to with thier sucess on IQ test then thier raw knowlege. Now a days most IQ test try to factor out the cultural bias that were in the test years ago.

I live in a small city. about 200k and it's 150 miles from the next largest city. I was listen to some young people talk about a local dish that they called Ponchos and a variation call Chichos. Now they were talking as if in fact that dish is universally known outside of the local area as those names. Having only lived here for 2 years I had to explain to them that outside of the 10 mile radius of ths city thet rest of the world calls them fajita nachos. If you were raised with a differant words for objests and that was to you the universal words for object your score can be lower then it could be. People define themselves by the time place and history of there commumity. look at the online world that you play in. Go up to a newb and start tell them what they are to do. Talk about Mobs PC NPC powersets AOE. getting on the tram and going to KR or SC. they mabe highly intelligent but lack the bases of the lingo that is being used to discribe to them how to get around the game.

if you were to setup a test where people had to get in the game create a character and get to a location starting from turnin on the computer. You rate thiere IQ on how fast then did test. depending on the differing immmersions computer, gaming and MMoPRG cultures will effected how well one will do.

Ok, I'll say it again since you missed it too.

We're arguing about whether it is right to base adjustments to testing on the color of one's skin or the circumstances of children's upbringing(socioeconomic..you know, because it means the social(cultural, in the true sense of the word!) and economic influences).

You just described to a T environmental effect on the testing, which agrees with every dang thing I've said in this thread.

The people who are arguing against my point are claiming it is affected by ethnic background which they mistakenly label culture. This is illustrated by Lleauaric showing the picture of a lynch mob hanging African Americans and telling me the effects that has on people of African descent as a whole. It is futher illustrated by him explaining how different the cultures are by looking in high school lunchrooms where different ethnic groups gravitate toward themselves.

Do any of you know how a IQ test is formulated?

The answer to every IQ test question is is provided in the question. The only things that are not provided are the formulas needed to solve the problem.

None of then ask ablout salad forks or the proper wording for a comming out party.


The sofa bullshit example is replaced by a description of the shape of the sofa.

The answer to every IQ test question is is provided in the question. Deaath, have you taken, or administered, one of the full-length I.Q. tests in person? Your assertion is simply *not* true for the main I.Q. tests that are used in public schools and colleges, as well as by state rehabilitation programs: The Wechsler and Stanford-Binet I.Q. tests. The Wechsler test, for example, still contains words that must be related to each other (specifically, it is asked: what do these two things have in common?), with no context given, as well as single words which are to be defined (also, no context given). It also contains cartoons which must be put in sequence depicting various events, as well as puzzles which one assembles to form various (hopefully familiar) objects. A great deal of effort *has* gone into trying to eliminate potential bias from this test and the Stanford-Binet, but since one can't completely eliminate vocabulary or references to events or objects from such a test, issues do still occasionally arise (the old Stanford-Binet is only allowed to be used in some school districts as a supplementary test to help better define very high and very low intelligence as it is contains questions more than three standard deviations out from norms on both the high and low ends). I could go into how gifted students are poorly served by the current Wechsler test, but that would be the subject on another discussion...

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective
(edit - corrected spelling)

Erm, sorry folks, but the argument for separate tests is anachronistic.

I recall taking my IQ test about eight and a half years ago (fifth grade in Los Angeles), and I have to call bullshit on the claims with regard to bias in word association. They may have been relevant in the late seventies, but not in recent years. However lacking the vocabulary of an inner-city child may be, mine was comparatively dismal; I had moved here two years prior, and was still on ESL at the time.

The test was not problematic in that regard.

Why? Was it automatically biased to help a student as pasty as his Everquest character would be, for the sake of the oppression of the African Americans? Was it divine intervention? Was Yuegou secretly helping me for promising not to hang off his nuts in the distant future?

No. The fact of the matter is that the test was almost entirely based on memory, sequences, and spatial relationships and perception. If it had contained lots of words (especially analogies as mentioned above) other than the extremely simple directions given by the woman who was administrating it, yours truly might have wound up in remedial classes. But it was purely visual.

Mexican Americans (term used VERY optimistically) love to come to this country yet don't seem to have much desire to participate in what is the basic foundation of living in the United States. I am talking about bothering to learn English, or even bothering to become naturalized and CONTRIBUTE. They stick with their own, and don't bother to learn the language of what is geographically their new home. Instead, the markets have to cater to them.

California was a Spanish province long before it became part of the US, and as far as I know, English is not the official language of the US anyway(you don't have one). So why don't YOU try to learn Spanish.

Dear Linlaweniel:

It might amuse you to know that Spanish *is* the lingua franca of many border areas in the U.S. (including South Texas, where I live). While education is conducted in English, most individuals in their day-to-day lives here either code-shift (switch back and forth between English and Spanish, sometimes in the same sentence ;) ) or speak almost exclusively Spanish. However, since the US is a very large geographical area with only its southern border (and much of that sparsely populated) shared with a country with a different primary language than English, most folks here do not grow up speaking more than one language unless they are the first generation descendents of immigrants. For good or ill, most Americans simply don't ever have to engage in commerce with, or travel to, a location where folks don't speak English, so they view this as more of an inconvenience/irritant than most Europeans. Also, because Americans have traditionally viewed their country as a 'melting pot', many of us view the rapid growth of a Spanish-speaking subpopulation that *does not wish to be assimilated* with some trepidation.

Let me give you an example. Here in Laredo, people are proud of their border heritage, and while they consider themselves American (*and* Mexican), they *don't* consider themselves, erm, Anglicized. Let me give you an example: Our local news this week announced that John Kerry had selected John Edwards as his running mate for the Democratic ticket. As part of the news story, they interviewed folks in the street as to how they felt about the choice. The *first* person they interviewed about the topic replied totally in Spanish! (the remainder of the replies were in English or mixed responses) That this was a question about the American presidential election, and that the *news station* chose to broadcast as its first respondant someone who replied totally in Spanish (not that many of their interviewees replied in Spanish, that is expected here) made both me (non-hispanic american) and my partner (hispanic, 1st/2nd generation child of immigrant parents) distinctly uneasy. (Btw, since you asked in a previous thread, in the US the term 'Hispanic' refers to anyone of spanish speaking origin, but more typically to folks from the western hemisphere (Latin American and Carribbean origin) who speak spanish, not specifically people from Spain). And, while the U.S. doesn't have an official language, all Federal forms are required to be available in English and Spanish (and in the government's infinite wisdom, despite the fact that Faervas speaks *no* spanish, his Social Security forms are always sent to him in Spanish ;) ).

But back to the I.Q. issue...

Willgatus, I'm glad that you were properly assessed, and if my posts have led you to believe that 'separate' can ever be called 'equal', that is not the case - I *don't* feel that way. In fact, there are major differences even between the different I.Q. tests used in terms of score distribution, especially concerning folks on the extremes (the Wechsler test caps out at 145, as all questions answerable/unanswerable by 99.9% of the population of that age are eliminated, and so a 145 (6 tenths of a percent of the population) and a 185 IQ (one in a million) looks the same, whereas a Stanford-Binet tests these extremes - children can and do have 30 point disparities between the two tests!). However, the Stanford-Binet is more problematic with respect to potential bias (more vocabulary, and sentence questions were/are used) and so many institutions are forbidden from using it.

My problem is not with using I.Q. tests, which I think are valuable, but in using them as the sole qualifier for either gifted or special programs (which they were 25 years ago in California). They *have* come a long way as far as eliminating bias goes and I do think it's silly to allow the tests for some races but not for others, but we have a substantial body of data that indicates that there is a disparity between how well some subgroups perform on these tests vs other sorts of assessments of academic performance, and so this needs to be taken into account. Faervas, my partner, wasn't so lucky as far as his assessment went 33 years ago, and was allowed to languish in special ed for *six* years, his dyslexia never diagnosed, an assumption being made from the color of his skin, his accent, and his test results that he wasn't fluent in English to boot - a more modern version of the test many years later put his IQ at 156.

I also think it's fair to say that you don't fall within 2 sigma of average intelligence, either, and that you're not exactly the 'typical' student in terms of level of motivation, language difficulties or no; I don't know too many of *my* students who lug dictionaries around with them in order to define words they are exposed to that they don't know, or even express curiosity about them - I've had exactly one student like that thus far, and to my delight she came to ask for help with, and quickly picked up, how to do standard deviations as well (and she was a commuting Mexican national). The interesting thing about the 1979 case was that the suing group wasn't Hispanics, who might have a legitimate claim regarding language issues, but Blacks in the S.F. Bay Area. I.Q. tests back in the 1970s *were* heavily vocabulary-laden and problematic; and despite the fact that these tests have changed, that a lot of fears remained about their use and potential misuse and so the policy was allowed to remain in place.

For both of these groups, the main 'barrier' issue to performing up to standard on modern I.Q. and some standardized tests isn't, in my opinion, language *in itself* (although it is still sometimes an issue), or race, but culture (and in some cases quality of education). Specifically, part of the problem lies within subcultures that devalue proper English usage and have apathetic attitude towards or a reductionist view of the value of education (which is a huge, endemic problem down here - the faculty here groaned in exasperation and disgust two years ago when our College President exhorted us to 'get our students through their classes so they could get good jobs' as part of his motivational message at Convocation) - and I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but I think that Bill Cosby is on the right track.

Ugh, I've run on at the mouth *way* too long again. /em throws some fresh mud in the pit :). Have a good weekend, y'all...

Regards,
Nydia