3 ms·

Rushton (2012) asserted that the fact that Black performance falls further behind White performance on subtests and items that have a higher g loading is an ind

by 001sky 14y ago

Rushton (2012) asserted that the fact that Black performance falls further behind White performance on subtests and items that have a higher g loading is an indication of a genetic contribution to the Black/ White IQ gap. He believes that a genetic hypothesis about the origin of the racial IQ gap would predict this pattern of larger differences for more heritable, heavily gloaded items, and that environmental ones would not. This belief is mistaken. The construct of g would have no significance if it were not a measure of cognitive complexity. If a group is environmentally disadvantaged, its performance in comparison to nondisadvantaged groups will be greater on more complex tasks than on less complex ones. If you have not played basketball for many years, your performance will be closer to what it was previously for layups than for fade-away jump shots. --Summary.

001sky 14y ago
Disregarding the problematic use of (1) "groups" solely defined as [race]; and (2) IQ as equivalent to [intelligence]; the <logical> extension of the analysis with the words <in origin> as used in the title is specious. [#,$,!] ________ [#] ie. Logically ok would be Group differences in IQ are best understood as an [having an environmental component]. =edit= [$] Its logically possible (and most likely correct) that there are N dimensions to intelligence that are consistent in simultaneity (and while still excluding race). EG, including non-racial defined genetic group variation and environmental factors could both have measurable deterministic impacts on outcomes, of order of magnitude equivalent value. Its problematic to assert that the "origin" of [xyz] intelligence is an either/or hypothesis, when its most likely a complex composite. For obvious reasons. [!] Environmental impacts, once established, cannot then simutaneouly be assumed as a neutral error variable (ie, with vanilla-stochasitic distribution). Certainly not without micro-analytic support. The latter is not evident / nor consistent with (1) or (2). Nor the use of basketball analogies.

by 001sky 14y ago

001sky 14y ago

Disregarding the problematic use of (1) "groups" solely defined as [race]; and (2) IQ as equivalent to [intelligence]; the <logical> extension of the analysis with the words <in origin> as used in the title is specious. [#,$,!] ________ [#] ie. Logically ok would be Group differences in IQ are best understood as an [having an environmental component]. =edit= [$] Its logically possible (and most likely correct) that there are N dimensions to intelligence that are consistent in simultaneity (and while still excluding race). EG, including non-racial defined genetic group variation and environmental factors could both have measurable deterministic impacts on outcomes, of order of magnitude equivalent value. Its problematic to assert that the "origin" of [xyz] intelligence is an either/or hypothesis, when its most likely a complex composite. For obvious reasons. [!] Environmental impacts, once established, cannot then simutaneouly be assumed as a neutral error variable (ie, with vanilla-stochasitic distribution). Certainly not without micro-analytic support. The latter is not evident / nor consistent with (1) or (2). Nor the use of basketball analogies.