what do you think of this study

I think it's crap. I don't know who did this particular "study" but there was nothing scientific about it. You can bet they had an agenda regarding what they wanted to "prove." It has all of the validity of the 19th and early 20th century "scientific" studies that measured things like the width of noses and size of lips and other physical attributes to prove that people of African decent were vastly genetically different - and inferior - to whites.There are many ways to manipulate this kind of data and you can use it to show pretty much anything you want. I would toss this in the trash where it belongs and go on about your day.

I agree with Oakshannon. It's skewed.

Just because it's written in a scientific style does not mean it's scientific. Not only is there no good way to measure intelligence, but categories of race are far too fluid to come to any conclusions.

Ignore that so called study. The data was manipulated... You have to take an in-depth look at the populations in this study who took the Wechsler test. There are usually two groups who take those tests... People angling to get into a gifted program or those with learning or mental health challenges. In many cases people do not take them unless they have a problem. Those tests are expensive... It's $700 - $1000 for testing. It's covered by insurance to diagnose a condition but it costs for gifted placement only. Both of my kids have taken the Wechsler test. It's fascinating but I am convinced it is skewed toward environment somehow. My kids who are not biologically related to me or to each other tested well and have high IQ's according to the results.

Exactly. It's not like we come out of the womb with our I.Q. stamped indelibly on our foreheads. Not only do most people never have an I.Q. test unless it's for a gifted program or a learning challenge - different I.Q. tests can give very different results. And yes, they are affected by environment. Many of the tests measure academic knowledge and vocabulary which is very influenced by environment.

I got to sit in the room when my DS took his test. There was a matching and logic portion... What do you match a ladder with? a tree, building or etc. The verbal portion really put focus on your environment. What is an apple? A child gets points based on how much information and the quality of the information they gave on the apple. It's a fruit, it can be red, green or yellow. They grow on trees... What is a shoe? Your wear it on your foot. You can lace it or use velcro. It protects your foot from the elements. The only non biased portion was matching shapes and symbols and drawing duplicates of objects.

Oh my goodness Oceanica... who exactly are you associating with?! Anyone who sent me a link to this study as "proof" of anything would immediately be blocked and all conversations would cease. The study and the website overall is so obviously biased that it's laughable (except it's NOT funny). Biased is actually being generous, it's essentially a white supremacy site. Titles such as "Call to White America", "Arnold's Negro Problem", "The Dispossession of Christian Americans" and "Marilyn and the Jews" should have been the first clue. This site is offensive to ANYONE that is not a Christian, white American and I feel confidant in saying the vast majority of Christian, white Americans would also be offended. I know you posted this with a "what do you think" question... but I find your post akin to promoting a white supremacy site. Color me disgusted... [QUOTE=oceanica]Someone on another forum sent me this link after we got into a rather spirited argument about the hiring of minorities in general. (Honestly I'm not sure why I bother trying to talk with these people.) At first it had me quite upset. I don't know about the study but I do know that my babies are very very bright so I guess it doesn't matter to me.[QUOTE]

Fe2002 there are so many of those sites out there, to include those under the guise of discussing science..its disgusting.Pure skewed garbage. ITA with what Sleeplvr says IQ tests have had and still do need to continuously test for non-bias. I only have to look at my own kids and family members. In addition, Blacks do and can score well, its about the environment..to include the subtle aspects of what kids absorb. This includes the media, home, and school. The overall perception can and do happen amongst folks today, and it's because of scientists (bell curve etc; ) that the above same thought links utilize. I can also tell you that many many parents have prepped their kids so they are used to the analogy question etc; on iQ tests. Or prep their kids during the summer so they are ahead achievement wise. In addition kids and people in general have different types of intelligence, so IQ is only a part of the component. Intelligence is imo not fixed. [URL="http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20111019/iq-scores-of-teens-may-change-over-time"]IQ Scores of Teens May Change Over Time[/URL]

The above post should say, I only have to look at my own kids, and family members, to see the result of high intelligence. In addition, when we were matched with DD we immediately noted her ability to problem solve. Earlier this year she was tested, the results indicated superior level abstract reasoning. My boys (bio) have also tested well. Both DD, and my boys test results are close, mainly in their verbal intelligence scores. Such biased information bothers me, as it had ties to eugenics etc; Anyhow, here is a Times article on the IQ mess from the past, and those trying to undo such. The article brings up questions, mainly about environments, but addresses some of the old results.[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html?pagewanted=all"]All Brains Are the Same Color - New York Times[/URL]This is another interesting article... It touches on the gap between middle class Whites, and Black kids mentioned in the first link. We do need more Black scientists in on these researches. That's why I suggested the book on Black achievement a few weeks back.[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html"]http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html[/URL]"Upwardly mobile parents often raise their children the way they themselves were raised. Phillips and her colleagues find that racial differences in parenting practices are partly traceable to the fact that even when black and white parents have the same test scores, educational attainment, income, wealth, and number of children, black parents are likely to have grown up in less advantaged households. Phillips and her colleagues also find that this can lower black children's test scores. In other words, it can take more than one generation for successful families to adopt the "middle-class" parenting practices that seem most likely to increase children's cognitive skills. "

I am sorry that this was offensive to some on here. I did not mean to be offensive, and certainly was not promoting the site. To say that is just silly. I don't know where the term promoting would come into this discussion. I also read through the text a little better and none of those racist titles were listed on the page that I looked at. I think the text was very biased of course. They must have been on another site you had to go to by checking on the author or something. They weren't on the original page. The thing about the "study" is that we can't find out how they obtained the participants or other details about statistical significance, etc. When I see a study, I try to analyze it reasonably before coming to a conclusion.... you cannot just pick and choose from studies and discount those that don't go along with what you think or believe. So I think in that sense I got some good responses on here and that's why I'm not sorry I posted it. PS I was talking to this person on another forum that is normally not about race at all. I had seen him or her before and never realized that the person was a racist. I usually don't waste my time with idiots. You can take "spirited discussion" as a euphemism for "ugly and angry exchange that did not go anywhere". Still when I first saw the study it really upset me... had me rattled more than it should have. Because I am hoping that my kids will be interested in medicine and science like their mother and I am expecting nothing less than the best from them academically.

Actually, it was the same site. I didn't figure it out right away, but if you go to the home page, you'll find that it's a white supremacist web-site. I didn't have to check on the author or dig around to find what Fe was talking about. It was right there. That should have told you all you needed to know about how accurate that so-called study was.

Ocean - Just addressing the removal of the link. The link to the homepage of the site was on the page of the article you linked to. I removed the link because of the site it was in and we don't wish to have our web traffic linked with that type of site. You must have missed the button at the bottom of the article that took you back to the homepage but it was there.

I tend to be analytical at times, and forget people have feelings. I checked out the other links, found that is always best to find out the source of an article etc; before I post. I was not turned off per say, I tend to read historical tied information, and maybe I am more so numb. However, I do take breaks from such reading, because it is disgusting, and can wear on the psyche. I really do not think we can view all subjects in a pragmatic way. Our kids are not scientific subjects. I hope our children will not have a teacher(s) who have such feelings deep down. Pat Buchanan has said similar stuff over the years, the study is plain as day racist, and wrong..and it's well know in these days and time. therefore only certain groups use such info. You will be surprised how many people think such talk is okay, even more so lately.

Oceanica, you posted a link and directed web traffic to a white supremist web site. Yes, you promoted it... whether intentionally or not. It's not "silly", it's a fact. I absolutely did not waste time googling the author, I simply clicked on the link you provided and then clicked the link to the home page that was on the page of the racist propaganda, err... "study" that you had provided. I was shocked to see that a long time member of this forum was in effect legitimizing this site (by asking others to read it and to provide thoughtful commentary on the subject). In this particular case, this "study" was clearly a work of fiction... I don't think I saw one citation or footnote (which is the reason I clicked on the link to the home page... to obtain more info. in order to "analyze it reasonably"). Now that you are aware of what type of site it is, I'm disappointed that you do not recognize just how inappropriate it is... but that tells me all I need to know. I'm done with this subject.

I guess the term promoting was a little confusing at first, like I am some sort of white supremecist myself or something. That's why I said it was silly... I don't think of myself as much of a white supremecist. I do understand how inappropriate it is, and I am glad that somebody took it down for me. fe I supppose after you mentioned to me about removing the link I should have gotten it off sooner, but I was in a time crunch that week and I'd barely had time to even check the responses to my thread, and I didn't know I could remove a link then. Again I am very sorry to have put that up. To fe specifically I have appreciated your input in the past and it was not my intention to offend and hurt people on here, least of all you.