Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen

Recommendations

Info

12 Accentuated environmental inequalities Negro-white IQ comparisons usually mean comparison of an environmentally less favored group with a more favored group. When the IQ difference is in the same direction as the environmental difference, the interpretation is problematic. Gottesman (1968, p. 34) has expressed the commonly held view: ‘It is only when two individuals or two groups come from equally favorable environments that a difference in measured IQ can be interpreted to indicate a difference in genetic potential.’ But what about environmental inequalities that are opposite in direction to the IQ difference Kuttner (1968, p. 147) first noted the methodological possibilities suggested by this set of conditions: If two populations can be studied which have experienced long-standing differential treatment, and yet both achieve at the same level, then grounds exist for presuming superior potential in one group. Or if one of the two groups responds to ameliorative conditions with a more markedly improved performance, then the same conclusion can be entertained. This procedure avoids artificially equating a disadvantaged group with a favored majority who may enjoy psychological and cultural benefits that are secondary products of status and hence beyond tabulation. At the same time, comparing deprived groups may isolate the significant variables that contribute most heavily to overall performance. Kuttner then proceeds with a detailed comparative analysis of
244 Educabilty and Group Differences Negro and American Indian environmental conditions and their mental and scholastic test performance. On all the socioeconomic, educational, and health factors which sociologists have generally pointed to as causes of the Negro-white differences in IQ and scholastic achievement, the American Indian population has been about as far below Negro standards as the Negro ranks below whites. In 1960 Indian median income was 59 percent of Negro, which was 55 percent of white. Life expectancy, reflecting nutrition and health care, is much lower for Indians than for Negroes. In educational disadvantages, unemployment, poor housing, and infant mortality Indians are considerably worse off than Negroes. The Coleman Report (1966) used a scale composed of 12 categories of environmental variables1 deemed important by social scientists as having a causal relationship to children’s intellectual development. In this nationwide survey, which included more than 645,000 children in 4,000 public schools, Indians were lower than Negroes in all 12 environmental categories, and, overall, Indians averaged further below Negroes than Negroes averaged below whites. The relevance of these environmental indices is shown by the fact that within each ethnic group they correlate in the expected direction with tests of intelligence and scholastic achievement. Since health, parental education, employment and family income, in addition to the 12 more subtle environmental factors rated in the Coleman study, are all deemed important for children’s scholastic success, the stark deprivation of the Indian minority even by Negro standards ought to be reflected in a comparison of the intelligence and achievement test performance of Indians and Negroes. The interesting fact is, however, that on all tests, from first to twelfth grade, Indians scored higher than Negroes. Since many Indian children are bilingual, they can be most fairly compared with white and Negro children on non-verbal tests of intelligence, especially in the early school years. Coleman et al. (1966, p. 20) found that on a non-verbal intelligence test the mean score of Indian children in the first grade (approximately 6 years of age) exceeded the mean score of Negro children by 0*96 SDs, which is equivalent to about 14 IQ points. The first-grade intelligence test scores (with an overall national mean of 50 and an SD of 10) of all the ethnic groups in the Coleman study (Table 9, p. 20) are shown below:
Page 1 and 2:
Educability & Group Differences Art
Page 3 and 4:
THE AUTHOR Since 1957 Dr. Arthur R.
Page 5 and 6:
Ediicability and Group ^
Page 7 and 8:
To the memory of Sir Cyril Burt e d
Page 9 and 10:
List o f Tables 3.1 Correlations am
Page 11 and 12:
17.3 Theoretical regression lines b
Page 13 and 14:
2 Educability and Group Differences
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
10 Educability and Group Difference
Page 23 and 24:
1 4 16 24 16 ^ I 1 2 1 2 6 6 2 1610
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Subpopulation differences in educab
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
2 Current technical misconceptions
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
j Intelligence and educability Educ
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Table 3.1 Correlations (decimals om
Page 93 and 94:
Table 3.3 Correlations (decimals om
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
100 Educability and Group Differenc
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
7 Race differences in intelligence
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204: 192 Educability and Group Differenc
Page 213 and 214: 8 Multiple and partial correlation
Page 253: 242 Educability and Group Differenc
Page 271 and 272: 14 Teacher expectancy Credence in t
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
ig Physical environment and mental
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
20 Recapitulation The study of abil
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Appendix on Heritability Heritabili
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
References a in s w o r t h , m . d
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
398 Author Index Davis, A., 300 Dea
Page 411 and 412:
400 Author Index Nichols, R. C., 10
Page 413 and 414:
Author Index 401 Warren, B. L., 120
Page 415 and 416:
cultural deprivation, 258 culture-b
Page 417 and 418:
Making Xs Test of speed and persist
Page 419 and 420:
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale,
show all

Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?