All of your racial and societal theories on social hierarchy are based on the statistical fact that average IQ's differ between races, and then you jump to the conclusion that its just because bad scores are because blacks and hispanics are retarded or something. Did you ever consider external cultural influences to contribute to the differing test scores?
> it's become clear that negative stereotypes raise inhibiting doubts and high-pressure anxieties in a test-taker's mind, resulting in the phenomenon of "stereotype threat."
explain yourself
apa.org
Cred Forums, we need to talk about stereotype threat
Samuel Rodriguez
Asher Jones
ignore all fox posters
sage all fox threads
do not reply to fox posts
Isaac Sanders
their inferior performance can be seen outside of standardized testing. you would be astounded how little low-income black students know or understand. i volunteered in a middle school and a lot of their work was indistinguishable from a first grader's, not even kidding.
that aside, i don't think it's entirely genetic. i personally believe single mothers are the biggest point of failure, especially poor ones. they don't read to their kids, they don't spend enough time with them / teach them discipline, they don't feed them properly, they don't make them do work over the summer- all of these factors add up to make it impossible for poor blacks to catch up to white students. ive written at length about this but dont feel like taking the time to write it out right now
Elijah Flores
Actually, the only thing "Stereotype Threat" shows is that college professors persuade their students to perform worse than expected.
Once the professors "removes" the "Stereotype Threat" the students perform as hereditarians predict.
Notice the "adjusted by SAT". SAT is an IQ test. So basically you'd expect no difference under normal conditions.
"Stereotype Threat" has never been observed during tests that actually matter.
"Stereotype Threat" has never been able to make Blacks perform better than expected, just worse.
>C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (1995) showed that making race salient when taking a difficult test affected the performance of high-ability African American students, a phenomenon they termed stereotype threat. The authors document that this research is widely misinterpreted in both popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating stereotype threat eliminates the African American-White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were statistically adjusted for differences in students' prior SAT performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson's findings actually showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups differ to the degree that would be expected based on differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of African American-White differences in test performance.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Kevin Watson
...
Jayden Powell
>implying i'd read a post longer than 20 words
Dominic Moore
>Did you ever consider external cultural influences to contribute to the differing test scores?
It's Lead.
The effects of lead poisoning have been known since roman times. The symptoms are reduced self control, difficulty with concentration, and reduced intelligence.
So how does Cred Forums describe black people?
They live where all the lead was historically handled. They breath it, they drink it, they grow up with it.
William Smith
that's why people in africa do so well on standardized testing right
Sebastian Miller
but that doesnt at all prove that intelligence is genetic, but it tells me that it's cultural, what point are you trying to make?
>Once the professors "removes" the "Stereotype Threat" the students perform as hereditarians predict.
but the aronson and steele study proved otherwise?
>Notice the "adjusted by SAT". SAT is an IQ test. So basically you'd expect no difference under normal conditions.
What?
Dominic Reed
it explains a part of it, probably most of it, but it isn't the full story. this is just anecdotal as i mentioned earlier, but again, the degree to which they are unable to perform very basic tasks is astounding. unless you've seen it yourself it's difficult to understand.
read this article- you will see that black children adopted by white families have a significantly higher iq than blacks raised by their biological parents. however, their iq is still lower than the adoptive parents' biological children, and lower than mixed-race children who were adopted.
analyseeconomique.wordpress.com
Nathan Ross
thanks for the source, friend. but couldn't the sterotype still come into play in the adoption cases? imagine how different you would feel with two white parents and their three white kids while you look nothing like anybody. Maybe we couldn't really quantify it, but I would wager that that would take effect on a child's subconscious view of himself.
haha what
profound
Christian Smith
Basically you're trying to judge an entire group of people based on their lowest common denominator, a denominator that has had to deal with slavery, poverty, water hoses, dog attacks, government scheming, Stockholm syndrome and gang warfare. And this is somehow supposed to be lower than a white person born into a decent family who trades it all for methy memories.
Andrew Sullivan
i think it may come into play to some degree, but how do you explain the difference between black and mixed race children? mixed race kids tend to be lumped in with blacks in my experience, so i would think their iq scores out to be closer if it was just a confidence/stereotype deal
Landon Diaz
why would black and hispanic cultures be so bad that they have low IQs?
because they're stupid spics and niggers is why
Jeremiah Bell
blacks score lower than whites across all levels of the socioeconomic spectrum
Angel Roberts
We are trying to create a society that does not work off the premis off equal outcome as scientifically that is impossible as evolution did not stop at the skin level.
Sorry u got confused
Ryder Thomas
if that were true, one would expect to find higher Mexican IQs in Mexico. Or higher black IQs in South Africa, Kenya, or Nigeria. Yet this is not the case. Nor is it the case among uncontacted tribes or still basically indigenous tribes.
Brody Turner
The faster windmills are observed to rotate, the more wind is observed to be.
Therefore wind is caused by the rotation of windmills. (Or, simply put: windmills, as their name indicates, are machines used to produce wind.)
Joseph Edwards
do you really think that uneducated masses of people have the same test taking skills that you and me have mastered with our cozy private educations? Theyre scores wouldn't be caused by stereotype threat, i agree, but I imagine the iq test would be the first test they ever take in their life, not too fair.
idk honestly. maybe mulattos would just fit in better in an adopted family
Jackson Garcia
eh I think that's a bit of a stretch. i am going to bed but will clarify that my primary point of contention was your explanation for why blacks have lower iqs- but i'm in full agreement that environmental effects play a greater role than genetics. also, as a final thought- do you think affirmative action might actually cause blacks to perform worse? it's basically an indirect way of saying "you aren't capable of meeting whites standards." i support affirmative action but the study you posted does make me wonder
Mason Johnson
C-cute foxy. ;_;
Jayden Morris
ive never thought of AA that way, and with a google search I found nothing, but i did find this
dailysignal.com
which was interesting but it doesn't talk about the effect on minority students' mindset when standards are lowered.
>the study you posted does make me wonder
one could say it really made you think?