06.02.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

308 <strong>Educability</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Group</strong> <strong>Differences</strong><br />

at the top.3 That is to say, for any value of G, the value of P for<br />

group A will exceed that of group B <strong>by</strong> 1 SD. (The dots represent<br />

the bivariate means of groups A <strong>and</strong> B <strong>and</strong> the solid <strong>and</strong> dashed<br />

lines are the regression of P on G or G on P.)<br />

Hypothesis 2 is a strictly genetic hypothesis; the groups differ in<br />

genotype but not in environment (GA>GB <strong>and</strong> EA= EB). Here<br />

we see that the regression of P on G (<strong>and</strong> G on P) is the same<br />

line for both groups.<br />

Hypothesis 3 is a combined genetic <strong>and</strong> environmental hypothesis,<br />

with two parts: (i) group A is more advantaged than group B<br />

both genetically <strong>and</strong> environmentally (GA>GB <strong>and</strong> EA>EB), <strong>and</strong><br />

(ii) the genetic difference is greater than the environmental<br />

difference {GA—GB>EA—EB). Note that in this case the regression<br />

line PA is above Pb, as in the top left graph (Hypothesis 1),<br />

but unlike Hypothesis 1, in Hypothesis 3 the regression line GA<br />

remains above GB.<br />

Now, with the consequences that logically follow from these<br />

three clearly formulated hypotheses made explicit, as shown in<br />

the regression lines of Figure 17.3, we can perform an empirical<br />

test of these hypotheses. Naturally, we can only crudely approximate<br />

the idealized hypothetical regressions shown in these graphs<br />

since there are no perfectly culture-free tests, i.e., tests with<br />

h2 = 1-00. The best we can do at present is to use two tests which<br />

differ most conspicuously in culture-loading. (The most cultureloaded<br />

test corresponds to P in Figure 17.3 <strong>and</strong> the least cultureloaded<br />

test corresponds to G.) For this purpose we have chosen<br />

Raven’s Matrices <strong>and</strong> the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test<br />

(PPVT). We have already pointed out that the Raven is one of the<br />

most culture-reduced tests available. The PPVT provides a<br />

striking contrast. It is probably the most culture-loaded among<br />

all st<strong>and</strong>ardized IQ tests currently in use. The test consists of<br />

150 plates each containing four pictures. The examiner says a<br />

word that labels one of the four pictures in each set <strong>and</strong> the testee<br />

is asked to point to the appropriate picture. The items increase<br />

in difficulty <strong>by</strong> increasing the rarity of the pictured objects <strong>and</strong><br />

their corresponding verbal labels. Figure 17.4 shows the mean<br />

frequency of these words per every million words of printed<br />

English in American books, magazines, <strong>and</strong> papers. It can be<br />

seen that for both equivalent forms of the test (A <strong>and</strong> B), the<br />

commonness of the words decreases systematically from the first.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!