1996-12-13 - Re: Redlining

Header Data

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: dthorn@gte.net (Dale Thorn)
Message Hash: 6069bb9f877878d092071de5764fc4ba055aa6af3be2058dee585333ffccad0c
Message ID: <199612130634.AAA14833@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <32B0F731.2541@gte.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-13 06:37:46 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:37:46 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:37:46 -0800 (PST)
To: dthorn@gte.net (Dale Thorn)
Subject: Re: Redlining
In-Reply-To: <32B0F731.2541@gte.net>
Message-ID: <199612130634.AAA14833@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Dale Thorn wrote:
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > E. Allen Smith wrote:
> > > Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument,
> > > Example:  Environment has a profound effect on a person's mind (outlook,
> > > perceptions, attitudes, moods, etc.), and thereby has a significant, if
> > > indirect effect on that person's hormone production (quantity, balance).
> > > And believe it or not, in some (perhaps unusual) cases, unexpected
> > > changes in hormone production can happen later in life as well, not
> > > just during the "development" years. And I'm not talking about decreased
> > I am sorry if I sound rather harsh, but this is a typical example how
> > real statistical research is replaced by politicized bullshit.
> There is *no* more real research that the research I do myself, and know
> about myself:  1) I have generally tested in the top 1/000 of one percent
> of the population in "intelligence", and  2) I have expended considerable
> effort in personal study and experiments with what the human body is
> capable of under given circumstances.  I have rubbed elbows with the
> world's most well-conditioned people (physically), for one, and have
> learned (for two) how to never get sick again (21 years running).

Dale, the "bullshit" I referred to was not yours, it was something that
you mentioned, so do not take it personally. I read your messages with

> > How to test a null hypothesis that differences in IQ between whites
> > and blacks are at least partially a result of genetic differences and
> > are not explained by "environment" solely?
> I hope I didn't give the wrong impression - genetics are certainly a
> factor in anything human, however, environment has an overwhelming
> influence on subsequent development. It's not 100% to 0%, in other words.

Absolutely agree. Another problem in measuring "environment" is
that it is rather hard to quantify.

> > All this "environment" stuff is rather easy to test and control for: take
> > two groups of children -- one from one race, another from another race,
> > who live in essentially the same conditions. Then compare the average IQs
> > and check statistical validity of your samples.
> > There was one study. They took a number of white adopted children and a
> > number of black adopted children, and made sure that they controlled for
> > other conditions such as adopted parents' income, etc.
> > Guess what was the result of IQ tests of children?
> I hope I don't regret saying this, but the above study has a far greater
> chance of being "politicized bullshit" than anything I'm likely to say,
> even when it's not from my personal experience.  Get serious, Igor.
> How the devil are you going to evaluate the fairness, honesty, and other
> attributes of such a study?  Do you know the researchers?

It is a good question. To me, the study can be done by the worst assholes
on the Earth. As long as their data can be verified and their methodology
is known, I have no problem with personal biases of researchers.

	- Igor.