Explain how standardized tests are biased

There are dozens of other ways in which intelligence is indirectly tested, and the different races all place in the exact same order in all of these tests.

Asians at the top (just like in school)

Whites

Latinos

Blacks

Single parenthood? That's a test of intelligence. Exact same order, but reversed.

Child abuse rates?

Child sexual abuse?

Sexually transmitted diseases?

Covid-19 infection rates?

Standardized tests in school?

Graduation rates?

Literacy rates of adults?

Money management skills are measured in different ways, and all measure intelligence.

Obesity rates? Did you know that blacks are the only race to not get less obese as their income goes up? High income generally = decently high intelligence, and high intelligence means better understanding of consequences of a bad diet, and a higher willingness to sacrifice tasty junk food for the long-term health benefits of a healthy weight and lifestyle.

Look up obesity rates by race, it's the EXACT order you would expect based on SAT or even STD test results.

Criminal rates?

Repeat criminal rates? AKA not even learning a lesson from going to jail the first time.

When people tell you that blacks receive longer prison sentences for the same crime, they neglect to tell you that it is because blacks are MUCH more likely to be repeat offenders. You ALWAYS go to jail for longer if it is not your first offence.

Like I said, intelligence is measured in a million different ways, and the racial pecking order is always the exact same. Asians are always the least criminal, most responsible at family planning, highest testing in school, highest income after graduation, hardest working, and even most humble.

That's right, the Dunning-Kruger Effect shows that the DUMBER a person/group is, the HIGHER they rate their intelligence. And the SMARTER a person/group is, the more skeptical they are of their own intelligence.

your parents wrote:

Banjo wrote:

We should spend the same amount of money on POC children, but we should do so in a more realistic, level-headed, productive fashion.

It's not just POC kids that could benefit from on-the-job paid training as part of their public education, it is also poor and low IQ white kids who would benefit.

So the race isn’t relevant to the system - just have on-the-job training for underperforming students.

The race is relevant because of the dramatic racial differences in intelligence. The underperforming students will have a distinctly ethnic commonality, in general.

And this is ALWAYS what stops any real progress. Some 40-55% of black kids should be in special education, or like I suggested, on-the-job training programs.

Math genius wrote:

Banjo wrote:

Liberals just want to throw more and more billions of dollars at an unsolvable problem. It's a good racket because as an unsolvable problem, there will always be an excuse to demand more and more money to address "systemic racism" in the education system.

I do agree that we are approaching something like an Anti-racism Industrial Complex. Whole industries and political systems seem to rely on the existence of an ever-present threat of racism to stand against.

But none of these liberals/educators will ever suggest actually PAYING POC kids for academic performance.

Roland Fryer did a study on paying kids for grades...it was in Dallas (or maybe Houston). I believe it worked.

The rest of your post is crazy racist stuff.

"crazy racist stuff" = "you make great points, as I noted, but give me a few days to digest these concepts that are new to me"

He said that the tests don't predict future academic success. Did you miss his post? The data shows that higher test scores result in higher academic success. Why do think Harvard does not admit kids who score 15 on the ACT?

go r wrote:

He said that the tests don't predict future academic success. Did you miss his post? The data shows that higher test scores result in higher academic success. Why do think Harvard does not admit kids who score 15 on the ACT?

But he made no mention of race as your follow up post asserted (misattributed).

The real Golden Age of social science and common sense about race ended after WWII.

The US has been in steep cultural, demographic, and intellectual decline ever since.

The original standard of "mild retardation" was an IQ below 85. This was based on real science, not political correctness or political considerations.

Under President LBJ, the IQ standard of Mild Retardation was reduced from 85 to 75, and then down to 70. This was done for Democratic political reasons, because 55% of blacks were falling under the 85 IQ threshold.

Now today we see that the black highschool dropout rate is about 50%, but more like 55% when you include those who dropped out in 8th grade or earlier.

And guess what percentage of blacks reads below a 4th grade level? You guessed it, about 55%. Which is the exact same percentage that fell under Mildly Retarded under the precisely scientific original definition.

Now we pretend that a person with an IQ of 75 is a fully functioning adult who should have no problem holding down a job, staying out of jail, using condoms, planning families, budgeting money, and voting in elections.

The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia

As the Iron Curtain crumbled, people often joked, “Marxism is dead everywhere – except American universities.” The stereotype of the Marxist professor runs deep. But is this stereotype grounded in statistical fact? Here are the results from a 2006 nationally representative survey of American professors. The survey asked if the professor considered himself “radical,” “political activist,” or “Marxist.” Survey says:

Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. The share rises to 5% in the humanities. The shocker, though, is that as recently as 2006, about 18% of social scientists self-identified as Marxists.

Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, the authors of the study, hasten to say, “Move along, nothing to see here.”

In contrast, I urge you to rubberneck. If 18% of biologists believed in creationism, that would be a big deal. Why? Because creationism is nonsense. Similarly, if 18% of social scientists believe in Marxism, that too is a big deal. Why? Because Marxism is nonsense. Furthermore, if 18% of a discipline fully embrace a body of nonsense, there is also probably a large bloc of nonsense sympathizers – people who won’t swallow the nonsense whole, but nevertheless see great value in it. Suppose, plausibly, that there is one fellow traveler for every true believer. That would bring the share of abject intellectual corruption to fully 35% – and 51% in sociology.

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

Banjo wrote:

and voting in elections.

You don’t think black Americans should be able to vote?

That is correct. I tied facts to the subject of this thread. Test scores predict future academic success. Blacks score worse than other races. Blacks therefore perform worse academically than other races. You can look any of these facts up pretty easily.

I have 2 children. One scored a 1580 on the SAT and is a top academic student, taking the most rigorous courses. My other just scored a 1230 and has to work very hard in all her classes with a moderate workload. They were both raised the same, with the same expectations and opportunities when younger. In our case, the SAT correlated with my children's academic ability and desire.Neither of my children took a class or had a Tudor. They both self studied.

Yes, I agree that the SAT is not perfect, but it is very helpful when looking at a student and their potential fit with a university's rigor. Of course, it can't be the only consideration, but it needs to be a major consideration.

In an increasingly high tech world, there are huge swaths of humanity that are only capable of holding down a low tech or simple job like manufacturing or agriculture. And even agriculture is too complicated for large swaths of humanity.

If white liberals wanted to REALLY help the black community, they would push for bringing back manufacturing jobs from China/Asia/Central America.

Instead, we see white liberals defend sacred POCs when they burn down cities to fight a "white supremacist system" in which most POCs were never meant to exist in, much less thrive in.

https://img.ifunny.co/images/e9f9b0eb0095930af059315652fc74d6147b433f267366260d7f19e2db559a76_1.jpg

IQ is supposedly independent of race, creed, color, religion or gender.

College admission tests are to standardize the basic skills sets that are indicators of academic success. This was considered important because of the wide variety of teaching and coursework, so that HS GPA's were misleading.

The poor had chances to rise in the system via academics.

However, a cultural issue was the breakdown of family units, especially noticeable in certain minorities that were in ghettos or otherwise designated poor neighborhoods.

Junior High and High School teachers and administrators in these neighborhoods became surrogate parents, because so often the children had one parent--a mother who was on social assistance and started having kids prior to graduating HS so as to gain access to subsidized housing.

The emphasis on raising and disciplining the children--rather than teaching-- is the majority of the problem, and it is not the responsibility of the testing boards to adjust their tests to accommodate these children.

When I was in HS, kids of wealthy parents were known for taking prep exams so as to score higher on the standardized tests. My friends couldn't have cared less, in fact we didn't take the SAT because it was the morning after the BOSTON concert. We took the ACT, and my friends would have been embarrassed to prepare for any such tests. It was like admitting to not being really smart.

your parents wrote:

Banjo wrote:

and voting in elections.

You don’t think black Americans should be able to vote?

I didn't say that, I said people with a 75 IQ shouldn't be able to vote. Same goes for a 79 IQ, and there's a strong argument against allowing 83 IQs to vote as well.

But I'm sure you have a strong, feminine argument for the voting rights of people who can't read at a 4th grade level after 13 years of free school.

Banjo wrote:

I didn't say that, I said people with a 75 IQ shouldn't be able to vote. Same goes for a 79 IQ, and there's a strong argument against allowing 83 IQs to vote as well.

Why not?

your parents wrote:

Banjo wrote:

I didn't say that, I said people with a 75 IQ shouldn't be able to vote. Same goes for a 79 IQ, and there's a strong argument against allowing 83 IQs to vote as well.

Why not?

Through intelligence, humans possess the cognitive abilities to learn, form concepts, understand, apply logic, and reason, including the capacities to recognize patterns, plan, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsGdCBk_18A

Here's another indirect measurement of intelligence. Compare it to any published IQ or standardized test results by ethnicity/country. It won't be an exact match, but pretty close:

Countries with Safe and Unsafe Tap Water

If you’re traveling anywhere in Africa, South America, or Central America, it’s safe to assume you shouldn’t drink the tap water. In North America, Canada, Greenland, and the United States are the only countries that have generally safe tap water.

Mexico is one popular tourist destination to cause concern. Drinking water in Mexico is a common cause of traveler’s diarrhea. Stick to sealed bottled water instead.

In Europe, it’s necessary to check the tap water status of your destination (see “Using the CDC Travelers’ Health Tool” below), as most Eastern European countries do not have safe tap water.

On the other hand, most Western European countries are safe for drinking water. European countries with generally safe drinking water include:

Andorra

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Liechtenstein

Luxembourg

Malta

Monaco

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

San Marino

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Vatican City

In Asia, the following countries generally have safe water:

Brunei

Hong Kong

Israel

Japan

Singapore

South Korea

In other countries in Asia, you’re probably best to go with bottled water.

Lastly, in the continent of Oceania, it’s safe to drink tap water only in Australia and New Zealand. Again, use caution in other countries in this region.

https://www.hccmis.com/blog/Posts/drinking-water-in-other-countries

Banjo wrote:

your parents wrote:

Why not?

https://media.tenor.com/images/5a664c8f758a5a99478231b1729bdceb/tenor.gifhttps://i.pinimg.com/236x/c9/fb/3f/c9fb3fd8b4191cbfbec68af3d807f37b--judge-judy-movie-tv.jpg

I think it is a legitimate question as to why you want to deny an essential American right to those with an IQ of 80, and how you would measure enforce such? It seems un-American.