http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/03/2008-sat-scores-by-race-b...
The study in question involves the SAT, not formal IQ tests, but the two are highly correlated. [1] You'll also see that the original claim isn't quite supported, as the poorest group of whites scored slightly worse than the richest group of blacks, but the study does broadly support the conclusion that the poorest whites outscore all but the richest blacks.
[1]: See, e.g., http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf?origin=p.... "These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g [general intelligence]."
It's a fact that while second-generation Chinese-Americans score quite well on tests and get a lot of bachelor's degrees, their children score even less well, and by the third generation they're as dumb as Americans. Wait, they are Americans. Right. See table 2 in [1]. So, the point is that according to census data people who come to the US from Asia get dumber, people who come to the US from Eastern Europe get dumber, and people who come here from Africa continue doing very well if they are Nigerian [2] and improve in educational attainment if they came from a refugee camp in Somalia. Hm. Apparently American society makes a lot of people dumber, although it does help out people coming from refugee camps. Since white people from Europe get dumber the longer they stay in the US, we've got to admit that it's the water, or our environmental regulations, or something else affecting their genetics, right? It's only fair. It couldn't be culture.
[1] https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs...
[2] http://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-mo...
And who does the flagkilling?
Likely that comment was flagkilled because it's a standard bigoted statement, known to be controversial. If you're going to make statements like that, then you really need to back them up with data. Using 'everyone knows this' and similar are some standard weasel-words that bigots use. Likewise, it was a brand new account created just for a few flamebait comments. It's not exactly honest debating.
Basically, if you are going to make an academic comment on a sensitive topic, you should take more care in how you present it.
I think it should be used to suppress spam and not for suppressing dissent, though.
> Basically, if you are going to make an academic comment on a sensitive topic, you should take more care in how you present it.
Precisely. I see plenty of people in this thread who have a fixed opinion with very little to back it up.
And it is not those who say that there is a measurable (and measured!) difference in intelligence or violence between blacks and whites.
smtddr's post nearby is clearly in that category. The hirhome link is hilarious and would be wonderful as satire if it weren't for Poe's law.
"There's no sensible reason to expect that, because all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago, and there hasn't been enough time for much evolution since."
The first part is very, very, very likely wrong, the second part is completely known to be wrong.
He also starts out by committing Lewontin's Fallacy.
In a comment he shows himself to be a Lamarckian:
"Oh, the Ashkenazi intelligence thing. Good childrearing! Generations of educating kids well, because of putting a very high value on education, both because of religious requirements and because of the economic niche they got slotted into by European nobility. If there are a set of alleles Ashkenazim have that the rest of humanity doesn't that are plausibly linked to intelligence, I've never heard of them."
"Anonymous" also has an answer (1 May 2013) that is much better.
I can tell by your insults that this discussion is impossible.
Citation needed