Looks Like Young Might Ride The Short Bus

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0761912304/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-7327760-6802552#reader-link

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950816Arc5120.html

"Standardized tests can not accurately measure intellectual merit because racial and gender stereotypes interfere with the intellectual functioning ofthose taking the tests, according to Stanford psychology Professor Claude Steele. "

http://www.theafrican.com/Magazine/IQ.htm

http://www.liberalartsandcrafts.net/contentcatalog/social/bias.shtml
"Cultural bias has long been a problem for test designers. The kinds of biases found in schools, including standardized tests, vary from language differences to exposure to certain historical truths."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar98/dial.html
"In 1972, Robert Williams, an African-American psychologist, developed the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity to demonstrate that testing of information indigenous to one’s culture can result in higher IQ scores for those with a different cultural background from the mainstream. "

http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq312beyondg.html
"Yes, certain minority groups score consistently lower on intelligence tests than European-Americans, but the cause, in our opinion, has to do with the concept of fairness. Most intelligence tests measure crystallized abilities, those abilities acquired through formal and informal experiences and education. By definition, these abilities are inseparable from prior learning or achievement, so they cannot be true measures of innate ability. Those who have enriched backgrounds and educational experiences typically score better on crystallized measures than those who come from impoverished or varied backgrounds. Does this mean the former children are smarter? We think not.

Those who use group differences to draw conclusions about racial group intelligence tend to ignore within-group variability and often collapse different abilities into a global IQ score for subsequent group comparisons (Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). For instance, we typically use language to measure crystallized abilities, so anyone whose primary language is not English, or those who use colloquial or nonstandard forms of English, will be less likely to do well on crystallized tasks or any other tasks requiring verbal facility. Intelligence test scores are intimately related to academic achievement in a reciprocal fashion (Ceci & Williams, 1997). If one has a good education and enriched environment, one will probably score better on intelligence tests. However, if one has a limited experience and education, one will not score as well. For these reasons, intelligence tests can be unfair for children of color or cultural difference, but the unfairness is not statistical, it's the result of the clinician's error in interpreting a low crystallized score as being the result of low intelligence. Ever since Binet and Simon developed the first "true" intelligence test, our intelligence tests have been unfair to some groups, individual people of cultural or linguistic difference from the overall normative population."

 

First a correlation depicts a relationship- but not a causal one. Would you say Jessica Simpson is smarter than Phd at APSU? Greater wealth means greater opportunity for enrichment. So kids in poverty with equal intelligence to more affluent individuals are going to score worse on iq tests because they are less prepared for the tests themselves.

I personally dont believe that the blue-collar worker is less intelligent than the lawyer and that is why he is where he is. Furthermore, intelligence studies dont support that. Thats one reason why you see generational development in education and wealth. For example my wife is a first year college graduate- her mother was one of the few that finished high school, her grandmother didnt finish the 4rth grade. My dad was one of the only in his family to get a college education, his dad worked in factory- now I finished a graduate degree. We didnt get more intelligent each generation- but were each in a better position take advantage of that intelligence.

You say you dont care about what a standford psychologist says about tests. You prefer to go off your own arguements than listen to an expert that spends his life studying the subject. And you called me arrogant?

Actually the articles to explain why particular groups score better on those tests. Mostly due to environmental factors- cultural & family norms etc.

The whole point of all this is say you cant view those scores without context. I thought we agreed on that earlier. I'm just providing context. A 16 is not just a 16. Its relevance is depicted by its context.