The State of American Education.

[Chobham]

Perhaps you should reserve a couple of pages to explain what a standard deviation actually is?

And spoil the fun?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

JE,Chubby, Ican't and "empty tank". How cute Lit's top racists.....racing to out Racist each other. It would be funny, if it wasn't so fucking sad.

 

[Bray123]

JE,Chubby, Ican't and "empty tank". How cute Lit's top racists.....racing to out Racist each other. It would be funny, if it wasn't so fucking sad.

Missed out Engelberk.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Missed out Engelberk.

JE = John Engleman = Engelberk

 

[JohnEngelman]

But the black population in this country is in a sense burdened by the large number of persons who are at a level of g that is no longer very relevant to a highly industrialized, technological society. Once you get below IQs of 80 or 75, which is the cut-off for mental retardation in the California School System, children are put into special classes. These persons are not really educable up to a level for which there’s any economic demand. The question is, what do you do about them? They have higher birth-rates than the other end of the distribution.

People are shocked and disbelieving when you tell them that about one in four blacks in our population are in that category — below 75.

- Professor Arthur Jensen

https://www.amren.com/news/2012/10/arthur-jensen-has-died/

------------

In April 1969 Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley created a fury when he had an article published in The Harvard Educational Review that was entitled, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"

Professor Jensen claimed that little could be done. As a result the professor's classes at Berkeley were interrupted by new left thugs. He received death threats, and sometimes required police protection. This began a tradition, evident on this forum, of anti racists trying to suppress assertions they cannot disprove.

The following chart indicates that Professor Jensen was correct, but it does not seem to have been adjusted for inflation.

The claims of the following article are adjusted for inflation:​

Inflation-Adjusted K-12 Education Spending Per Student Has Increased By 280 Percent Since 1960, by Corey A. DeAngelis,​

Stanford University economist Eric Hanushek reviewed nearly 400 studies on the topic and concluded that “there is not a strong or consistent relationship between student performance and school resources.”

https://reason.org/commentary/infla...dent-has-increased-by-280-percent-since-1960/

In other words, the claims Professor Arthur Jensen made have been verified: dollars cannot make scholars.

------------

People with IQ's below 100 tend to be more prolific than people with IQ's above 100. While this is happening computer technology and automation are eliminating jobs people with IQ's below 100 are able to learn. If current trends continue a growing percentage of the world's population will be incapable of supporting themselves.

​

 

[ll74]

But the black population in this country is in a sense burdened by the large number of persons who are at a level of g that is no longer very relevant to a highly industrialized, technological society. Once you get below IQs of 80 or 75, which is the cut-off for mental retardation in the California School System, children are put into special classes. These persons are not really educable up to a level for which there’s any economic demand. The question is, what do you do about them? They have higher birth-rates than the other end of the distribution.

People are shocked and disbelieving when you tell them that about one in four blacks in our population are in that category — below 75.

- Professor Arthur Jensen

https://www.amren.com/news/2012/10/arthur-jensen-has-died/

------------

In April 1969 Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley created a fury when he had an article published in The Harvard Educational Review that was entitled, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"

Professor Jensen claimed that little could be done. As a result the professor's classes at Berkeley were interrupted by new left thugs. He received death threats, and sometimes required police protection. This began a tradition, evident on this forum, of anti racists trying to suppress assertions they cannot disprove.

The following chart indicates that Professor Jensen was correct, but it does not seem to have been adjusted for inflation.

View attachment 2206458

The claims of the following article are adjusted for inflation:​

Inflation-Adjusted K-12 Education Spending Per Student Has Increased By 280 Percent Since 1960, by Corey A. DeAngelis​

Stanford University economist Eric Hanushek reviewed nearly 400 studies on the topic and concluded that “there is not a strong or consistent relationship between student performance and school resources.”

https://reason.org/commentary/infla...dent-has-increased-by-280-percent-since-1960/

In other words, the claims Professor Arthur Jensen made have been verified: dollars cannot make scholars.

------------

People with IQ's below 100 tend to be more prolific than people with IQ's above 100. While this is happening computer technology and automation are eliminating jobs people with IQ's below 100 are able to learn. If current trends continue a growing percentage of the world's population will be incapable of supporting themselves.

​

1992.

 

[JohnEngelman]

double post

 

[JohnEngelman]

1992.

You are mistaken if you think miracles have happened since 1992.

In The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray and Professor Richard Herrnstein pointed out that black academic performance increased somewhat until the mid 1980. Then improvement stopped, leaving a large race gap. No Child Left Behind failed to close the race gap.

 

[ll74]

You are mistaken if you think miracles have happened since 1992.

In The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray and Professor Richard Herrnstein pointed out that black academic performance increased somewhat until the mid 1980. Then improvement stopped, leaving a large race gap. No Child Left Behind failed to close the race gap.

Your statement about IQ is based on data from 1992.

You can claim it hasn't changed all you want, but without data to back it up, it's just a hypothesis.

Murray doesn't help you make the argument either.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your statement about IQ is based on data from 1992.

You can claim it hasn't changed all you want, but without data to back it up, it's just a hypothesis.

Murray doesn't help you make the argument either.

Charles Murray's assertions have been proven by the failures of Head Start and No Child Left Behind, and by research that has found gene alleles that effect intelligence.

---------

Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in school,​

• BYSARAH C. P. WILLIAMS, October 6, 2014

Twin study shows that many different inherited traits shape a person's grades and test scores​

Researchers have previously shown that a person's IQ is highly influenced by genetic factors, and have even identified certain genes that play a role. They've also shown that performance in school has genetic factors.

https://www.science.org/content/art...your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school

 

[ll74]

Charles Murray's assertions have been proven by the failures of Head Start and No Child Left Behind, and by research that has found gene alleles that effect intelligence.

---------

Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in school,​

• BYSARAH C. P. WILLIAMS, October 6, 2014

Twin study shows that many different inherited traits shape a person's grades and test scores​

Researchers have previously shown that a person's IQ is highly influenced by genetic factors, and have even identified certain genes that play a role. They've also shown that performance in school has genetic factors.

https://www.science.org/content/art...your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school

Your IQ assertions were specific to the data. That's the claim I'm referring to.

Murray's claim of genetics is flat out false. And that study is 8 years old.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your IQ assertions were specific to the data. That's the claim I'm referring to.

Murray's claim of genetics is flat out false.

Charles Murray has been cursed at, but never disproved. If his detractors were confident that he was mistaken they would welcome a candid debate with him. Instead his detractors try to keep him from speaking.

 

[ll74]

Charles Murray has been cursed at, but never disproved. If his detractors were confident that he was mistaken they would welcome a candid debate with him. Instead his detractors try to keep him from speaking.

He's wrong.

Races have no genetic differences.

 

[JohnEngelman]

He's wrong.

Races have no genetic differences.

"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, from Commentary 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group.

When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetc information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

---------

The experiment Charles Murray discusses is a double blind experiment. Those doing DNA testing do not know the self identified races of the people who supplied DNA samples for testing.

Once we acknowledge that a person's race can be determined by DNA testing it becomes legitimate to see how gene alleles that are known to influence intelligence and criminal behavior differ in frequency between the races.

 

[ll74]

"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, from Commentary 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group.

When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetc information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

---------

The experiment Charles Murray discusses is a double blind experiment. Those doing DNA testing do not know the self identified races of the people who supplied DNA samples for testing.

Once we acknowledge that a person's race can be determined by DNA testing it becomes legitimate to see how gene alleles that are known to influence intelligence and criminal behavior differ in frequency between the races.

He's wrong.

Regardless of your copypasta.

A person's race is not genetically unique. Murray has no expertise in genetics.

 

[JohnEngelman]

He's wrong.

Regardless of your copypasta.

A person's race is not genetically unique. Murray has no expertise in genetics.

Charles Murray is a political scientist with a degree from Harvard. He is well versed on many subjects.

 

[ll74]

Charles Murray is a political scientist with a degree from Harvard. He is well versed on many subjects.

Correct ...not a geneticist. Thanks for confirming. He's political.

 

[Bray123]

Did Charles Murray attend a school in a black area, so he's able to comment on the quality of education provided?

Because it sounds as if he wasted the education he did receive.

 

[icanhelp1]

Charles Murray is a political scientist with a degree from Harvard. He is well versed on many subjects.

So, what are the effects on children from mixed marriages, is one dominant over another?

 

[JohnEngelman]

So, what are the effects on children from mixed marriages, is one dominant over another?

Race correlates with intelligence and behavior. Race determines neither.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Did Charles Murray attend a school in a black area, so he's able to comment on the quality of education provided?

Because it sounds as if he wasted the education he did receive.

I have never talked to or read the account of a white person who attended a black majority public school, who left the experience with a benign opinion of Negroes. They tell me that black majority public schools are dangerous places where little learning occurs. They are particularly dangerous for whites, Asians, and blacks who "act white" by trying to learn.

Once I read of a black majority public school where whites who used the rest rooms were beaten up by blacks. When they complained to the black principal, he advised them to use the rest room in the nurse's office.

White liberals are known for not sending their children to black majority public schools. They live in white school districts, or they send their children to white private schools.

Charles Murray made good use of his education by documenting facts many people want to suppress.

 

[ll74]

I have never talked to or read the account of a white person who attended a black majority public school, who left the experience with a benign opinion of Negroes. They tell me that black majority public schools are dangerous places where little learning occurs. They are particularly dangerous for whites, Asians, and blacks who "act white" by trying to learn.

You've never talked to or read an account of a white person who went to a black majority school at all. So making up how you think the conversation might go is literal bullshit.

Once I read of a black majority public school where white who used the rest rooms were beaten up by blacks. When they complained to the black principal he advised them to use the rest room in the nurse's office.

You've never read this.

Quit lying to support your own bullshit.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You've never talked to or read an account of a white person who went to a black majority school at all. So making up how you think the conversation might go is literal bullshit.


You've never read this.

Quit lying to support your own bullshit.

It is not necessary for me to lie about average racial differences in intelligence and behavior. These differences are well known to those with extensive experience with different racial groups. You are either lying, or you do not know what you are talking about.

I do not what is worse: lying, or making dogmatic statements based on no evidence at all.

 

[icanhelp1]

Race correlates with intelligence and behavior. Race determines neither.

? but DNA determines race so by your narrative DNA influences intelligence and criminal behavior and the differences of those traits across different races. I believe environmental exposure and cultural beliefs affect behavior and influences intelligence and criminal behavior more than DNA. IQ is the ability to reason and retain ( commit to memory ) I find it hard to believe that if you take two people from birth one with Asian genetics and one with Black genetics raise them in the same environment that one will develop different from the other. IMHO Not trying to be argumentative.

 

[ll74]

It is not necessary for me to lie about average racial differences in intelligence and behavior. These differences are well known to those with extensive experience with different racial groups. You are either lying, or you do not know what you are talking about.

I do not what is worse: lying, or making dogmatic statements based on no evidence at all.

Feel free to provide these things you "read" to prove it. I know it's horseshit.

If it's well known, then why bring up personal shit you can't support.with evidence?