right on. in a perfect world we could ignore ignorance and it'd fade away, like the gods in comic books who cease to exist when humans quit believing in them. But that's not the real world; repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.That's how Bush gained his power... And sometimes that silence would mean watching someone else get a job that a black person deserved, or a cop stopping people of color instead of whites, or teachers just assuming that black kids don't perform as well.
Like i related in my story the other day, when my first grade teacher made the unconscious decision that i was fit for janitorial duty, my parents didn't stay silent. we have to speak up to challenge all such beliefs. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The timing of the three recent articles is not peculiar in my opinion. > The all were related to the Watson incident, which was followed by > idiots putting out their data that genetically had lower IQs. After > this being off the table for years, these guys were getting traction > with new data. Then the guy in the article, squashing their data. > Finally on Sunday, there are the revelation that Watson, the guy who > jump started this nonsense is part Black. The articles all referred to > the original Watson incident and his being fired a month later as a > result of his comments. It is timely, in my opinion. But I get it, you > do not want anybody to refute the idiots because you are not paying > attention to the argument. Left unanswered, I think these theories > gain power. While I believe most White males think this stuff, if there > is data out there to support their bias against us that is not refuted, > and it becomes the prevailing wisdom, things could get a whole lot worse > for us.. and as you know, it is bad enough already > > Many of us growing up, in school, in college, in graduate school, in the > workplace have been and continue to be faced with this perspective. I > have experienced it personally growing and I have had to help others who > come to me for career advice to deal with it. Silence to these > contentions, in my opinion is worse than someone showing that they are > false. I think we need to have people taking the wind or power out of > these horrible theories when the resurface and get international > exposure. While I doubt it has much impact on the Whites in power, it > prevents them from being emboldened any further. Also, I know from > talking to those who seek my assistance - who are often worn down from > the attacks from so many different areas (teachers, peers, bosses) that > it does make a difference in helping them to remember that it is not > true about them. > > Daryle wrote: > > > > > > Okay then, let me, personally, be clear. > > > > I'm saying that the reality that either article was written is a waste of > > energy. I am saying that this is an argument that nobody asked for. I am > > also saying that the TIMING of this argument is a little peculiar. > > Nobody's > > been concerned about how intelligent we were for what, 40 years? Now, the > > year before an election, where a Black dude is running, there's a > > *question*? > > > > I don't buy this, and further, I'm saying that we should see that we are > > being sold. > > > > On 12/12/07 4:18 PM, "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Here is the thing guys. I'm confused. There was a "scientific" article > > > on Slate that said that Blacks statistically 15 -20 points dumber than > > > anyone else and the guys had the numbers to support it. So this guy > > > response by tearing about those numbers and showing that those numbers > > > are irrelevant and providing evidence from other tests that disprove his > > > theory and you have a problem with this guy. He is saying that race > > > does not determine intellect in the face of all the scientists that are > > > saying that race determines intellect. > > > > > > Your response baffles me. I got to reread this article > > > > > > Daryle wrote: > > >> > > >> Key term here: diversionary. I totally agree. > > >> > > >> Race is the new ⤽gay marriageâ¤?. Anti-Christianity is the new > > >> ⤽immigrationâ¤?. > > >> Weâ¤^(TM)ve seen all of this before. Folks who write these articles > > should be > > >> ashamed of themselves. Itâ¤^(TM)s old hat at this point. > > >> > > >> Daryle > > >> > > >> On 12/12/07 2:12 PM, "Martin" > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> (standing ovation) > > >>> > > >>> ravenadal > > > > >> > wrote: > > >>> I am so tired of this argument because it is diversionary. The truth > > >>> of the matter is this: the only difference between uneducated white > > >>> people and uneducated black people is that uneducated white people > > >>> have jobs. > > >>> > > >>> The only difference between educated white people and educated black > > >>> people is that educated white people have BETTER jobs. > > >>> > > >>> ~(no)rave! > > >>> > > >>> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > > > >> > > >> , > > >>> "Tracey de Morsella (formerly > > >>> Tracey L. Minor)" wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> All Brains Are the Same Color > > >>>>> By RICHARD E. NISBETT > > >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html? > > > > >> > > > > > >>> pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion > > >>>>> Ann Arbor, Mich. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he > > >>> was > > >>>>> ââ,¬â^?inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africaââ,¬? and its > > >>> citizens > > >>>>> because ââ,¬â^?all our social policies are based on the fact > > that their > > >>>>> intelligence is the same as ours ââ,¬" whereas all the testing says > > >>> not really.ââ,¬? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Dr. Watsonââ,¬^(TM)s remarks created a huge stir because they > > implied > > >>> that > > >>>>> blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy > > >>> resulted > > >>>>> in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. > > >>> But > > >>>>> was he right? Is there a genetic difference between blacks and > > >>> whites > > >>>>> that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less intelligent? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in > > >>> a > > >>>>> 1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a > > >>>>> psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen > > >>>>> maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and > > >>> whites > > >>>>> was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that could > > >>>>> never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of the > > >>>>> evidence. And others who later made the same argument ââ,¬" Richard > > >>>>> Herrnstein and Charles Murray in ââ,¬â^?The Bell Curve,ââ,¬? > > in 1994, for > > >>> example, > > >>>>> and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on Slate > > >>> ââ,¬" > > >>>>> have made the same mistake. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences > > >>> in > > >>>>> I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 > > >>> percent > > >>>>> of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most > > >>> estimates > > >>>>> of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of > > >>>>> middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a > > >>> substantial > > >>>>> proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the > > >>> range > > >>>>> of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric > > >>>>> Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means that for the > > >>> poor, > > >>>>> improvements in environment have great potential to bring about > > >>>>> increases in I.Q. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells > > >>> us > > >>>>> nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a > > >>> trait > > >>>>> is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants), > > >>> modifiability > > >>>>> can also be great (think of the difference growing conditions can > > >>> make). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. > > >>>>> differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that > > >>> brain > > >>>>> size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have smaller > > >>>>> brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men and > > >>> women > > >>>>> is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet > > >>> men > > >>>>> and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests. Likewise, a > > >>> group > > >>>>> of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that > > >>> produces > > >>>>> extremely small head sizes ââ,¬" and hence brain sizes. Yet their > > >>>>> intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Why rely on such misleading and indirect findings when we have much > > >>> more > > >>>>> direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap? About 25 percent > > >>> of > > >>>>> the genes in the American black population are European, meaning > > >>> that > > >>>>> the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent African to > > >>> mostly > > >>>>> European. If European intelligence genes are superior, then blacks > > >>> who > > >>>>> have relatively more European genes ought to have higher > > I.Q.ââ,¬^(TM)s > > >>> than > > >>>>> those who have more African genes. But it turns out that skin color > > >>> and > > >>>>> ââ,¬â^?negroidnessââ,¬? of features ââ,¬" both measures of > > the degree of a > > >>> black > > >>>>> personââ,¬^(TM)s European ancestry ââ,¬" are only weakly > > associated with > > >>> I.Q. (even > > >>>>> though we might well expect a moderately high association due to > > >>> the > > >>>>> social advantages of such features). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> During World War II, both black and white American soldiers > > >>> fathered > > >>>>> children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 > > >>> percent > > >>>>> European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested > > >>> in > > >>>>> later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were > > >>> found to > > >>>>> have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an > > >>>>> average of 96.5, a trivial difference. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the > > >>>>> smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when > > >>> a > > >>>>> group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children > > >>> in > > >>>>> the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their > > >>> parents > > >>>>> and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater > > >>> degree of > > >>>>> European ancestry than blacks in the population at large. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the > > >>> degree > > >>>>> to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group > > >>> assays > > >>>>> show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q. > > >>>>> Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high > > >>>>> intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in > > >>> origin > > >>>>> than other blood groups. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is > > >>> a > > >>>>> study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been > > >>> adopted by > > >>>>> white parents had lower I.Q.ââ,¬^(TM)s than those of mixed-race > > >> children > > >>> adopted > > >>>>> by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study > > >>> had > > >>>>> many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a > > > > > >>>>> substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age > > >>> at > > >>>>> adoption is associated with lower I.Q. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> A superior adoption study ââ,¬" and one not discussed by the > > >>> hereditarians ââ,¬" > > >>>>> was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist > > >>> Elsie > > >>>>> Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by > > >>>>> middle-class families, either black or white, and found no > > >>> difference in > > >>>>> I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. > > >>>>> Mooreââ,¬^(TM)s finding that children adopted by white families had > > >>> I.Q.ââ,¬^(TM)s 13 > > >>>>> points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The > > >>>>> environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are > > >>> not as > > >>>>> favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class > > >>> whites. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what > > >>>>> factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case > > >>> Western > > >>>>> Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community > > >>> College > > >>>>> tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability > > >>> to > > >>>>> learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had > > >>> substantially > > >>>>> more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but when > > >>> participants > > >>>>> were tested on their ability to learn new words, either from > > >>> dictionary > > >>>>> definitions or by learning their meaning in context, the blacks did > > >>> just > > >>>>> as well as the whites. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to > > >>>>> recognize similarities and better facility with analogies ââ,¬" > > when > > >>>>> solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more > > >>> likely > > >>>>> to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of > > >>> reasoning > > >>>>> were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks > > >>> and > > >>>>> whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior > > >>> knowledge > > >>>>> predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was > > >>> prior > > >>>>> knowledge only that differed. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What do we know about the effects of environment? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the > > >>>>> so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. > > >>> researcher > > >>>>> in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a > > >>> whole, > > >>>>> I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States > > >>> alone, > > >>>>> it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough > > >>> over > > >>>>> such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the > > >>>>> result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could > > >>> produce > > >>>>> changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also > > >>> produce > > >>>>> big differences between subpopulations at any given time. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white > > >>>>> 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last > > >>> 30 > > >>>>> years ââ,¬" a period that was more favorable for blacks in many > > ways > > >>> than > > >>>>> the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of > > >>>>> Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math > > >>>>> improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Most important, we know that interventions at every age from > > >>> infancy to > > >>>>> college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic > > >>> achievement, > > >>>>> sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. This > > >>>>> mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has > > >>>>> environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as > > >>> a > > >>>>> society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to > > >>> develop > > >>>>> their minds. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Richard E. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of > > >>>>> Michigan, is the author of ââ,¬â^?The Geography of Thought: How > > Asians > > >>> and > > >>>>> Westerners Think Differently and Why.ââ,¬? > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> "There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels > > >> will get > > >>> organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man > > >> Without A > > >>> Country" > > >>> > > >>> --------------------------------- > > >>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > > >> Search. > > >>> > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
