Liberal Press Bias - Page 24
Forum Index > General Forum |
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On December 08 2008 15:11 aRod wrote: How are IQ tests biased in any direction towards any race? I've never really studied this and I ask sincerely. Cultures have different "mindsets" when it comes to things like numbers. For example, some tribes in africa don't have the concept of "27" or counting, instead they say things like "a lot" and "a little". Or instead of saying "5 miles south then 4 miles west" they may say "across the river when the trees become smaller" or something. | ||
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity, or BITCH-100, is an intelligence test created by Robert Williams in 1972 oriented toward the language, attitudes, and life-styles of African Americans. White students perform more poorly on this test than blacks, suggesting that there are important dissimilarities in the cultural backgrounds of blacks and whites.[1][2] Some argue that these findings indicate that test bias plays a role in producing the gaps in IQ test scores.[3] Similarly to the Williams test, the Chitling Intelligence Test [4] is another example of a culturally biased test that tends to favor African Americans.[5] Both of these tests demonstrate how cultural content on intelligence tests may lead to culturally biased score results. Still these criticisms of cultural content may not apply to "culture free" tests of intelligence. The BITCH-100 and the Chitling test both have explicit cultural assumptions, while normal standardized tests are only theorized to have implicit bias. The fact that a test can have bias does not necessarily prove that a specific test does have bias. However, even on cultural free tests, test bias may play a role since, due to their cultural backgrounds, some test takers do not have the familiarity with the language and culture of the psychological and educational tests that is implicitly assumed in the assessment procedure.[6] Beverly Daniel Tatum writes that dominant cultures often set the parameters by which minority cultures will be judged. Minority groups are labeled as substandard in significant ways, for example blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than whites. Tatum suggests that the ability to set these parameters is a form of white privilege.[7] BITCH-100 rofl | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
MyLostTemple
![]()
United States2921 Posts
| ||
Qwertify
United States2531 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On December 07 2008 02:16 Savio wrote: Disclaimer: I don't pretend to be unbiased myself. I am conservative in my political views. Take a gander at this quick article from the Washington Times. I will point out the highlights and pose some questions. + Show Spoiler + It's a record-setting press honeymoon. President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday. "Obama's positive press is the strongest showing CMPA has ever recorded for a presidential candidate since we began monitoring election news in 1988," said Robert Lichter, director of the nonpartisan research group affiliated with George Mason University. By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage. Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said. The study analyzed 1,197 election stories from Aug. 23 to Nov. 4 on "ABC World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," "CBS Evening News" and the first half-hour of "Fox Special Report." The findings counter previous CMPA research trends somewhat. On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press. Mr. Obama also trumped coverage garnered by former presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat received 59 percent favorable press in a similar study conducted during the 2004 election. NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage. Fox also took him to task for some lofty trappings. "President-elect Barack Obama is looking very presidential these days. When he makes an announcement, he is ringed by American flags and stands behind a lectern that has a very presidential-looking placard announcing 'The Office of the President-Elect.' But the props are merely that. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as the Office of the President-Elect," a recent Fox News op-ed piece said. Not only was criticism of Mr. Obama not typical at the other networks, but some journalists seemed to wax rhapsodic about Mr. Obama -- framing his campaign in dramatic terms. In recent days, NBC's Andrea Mitchell called him a "rock star," while ABC's Terry Moran noted, "You can see it in the crowds. The thrill, the hope -- how they surge toward him." CBS' Tracy Smith described Mr. Obama's "stoic elegance," adding, "even some political commentators who've seen it all can't help but gush." It was all too much for the Media Research Center, a Virginia-based conservative watchdog group that has assembled a roster of "Obama's Media Groupies." Other research has revealed an Obama-centric press. A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents. A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative. Even The Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an "Obama tilt" in her own newspaper in a recent op-ed piece. "On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press." "President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday. By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage. Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said." "NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage." "A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents. A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative." Now I know that this is an overwhelmingly liberal website in terms of the political opinions of the members, but I was wondering what TL.netters thought of the liberal bias that has been in the news since at least 1988. Does this affect the outcome of election? Does a slanted media have negative effects on a democracy? Do you think this is all crap and that there is no bias? If so, why do you believe that? Does this information make you happy or angry? it makes me hppy | ||
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On December 08 2008 16:11 fight_or_flight wrote: Where does the 100 come from? Why not just call it the BITCH? Likely they aimed for 100 to be the average IQ. | ||
HnR)hT
![]()
United States3468 Posts
On December 08 2008 10:15 outqast wrote: I just read it and it was not very persuasive. Hi outqast. I probably owe you a more substantive reply by now, but I'm a bit busy so I will ask you a few questions instead. 1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average? 2. What is your basis for believing that that is not, in fact, the case? 3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be? Think about it for now, I'll try to get back to this thread at some point. edit: btw ZERG_RUSSIAN: your objections are invalid. I'll say more on this if I have time. Louder, read the article I linked above. You "know" some things that are flat out false. | ||
HnR)hT
![]()
United States3468 Posts
On December 08 2008 15:57 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceCulturalBias.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity BITCH-100 rofl You can't just call any set of random questions an "intelligence" test, in the technical sense. What makes you think this is one? Does it correlate with academic achievement or long-term life outcomes? Brain sizes? Reaction times? Short-term memory? Results on intelligence tests that obviously have nothing to do with knowledge, like the backward digit span? Real IQ tests at least happen to meet all those criteria. | ||
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
All you can say about IQ-tests is that they measure how well you perform on IQ-tests. That however, is quantifiable. Consider all the correlations between high IQ and longevity, healthiness, as well as an inverse correlation between high IQ and religiosity. That shows that the classical, western, IQ-tests shouldn't be dismissed. Also, I think people have so strong moral and political motivations for saying that all flavours of humans are equally intelligent. I think they are because I can't find any single good reason why there should be differences in intelligence. But I would be open to another truth. I don't think most people would be however. | ||
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average? Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects. 3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be? Eugenics. | ||
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On December 08 2008 22:23 HnR)hT wrote: Hi outqast. I probably owe you a more substantive reply by now, but I'm a bit busy so I will ask you a few questions instead. 1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average? 2. What is your basis for believing that that is not, in fact, the case? 3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be? Think about it for now, I'll try to get back to this thread at some point. edit: btw ZERG_RUSSIAN: your objections are invalid. I'll say more on this if I have time. Louder, read the article I linked above. You "know" some things that are flat out false. I seriously can't believe you're still arguing this. It would take the ability to completely negate all cultural and socio-economic variables in order for an IQ test to be a reasonable test of someone's intelligence. Even then, if there was some substantial difference in race, you would have to actually narrow it down and find what specific genetic differences caused it, and how. The entire scenario is sketchy and it's extremely unlikely something like that could ever happen. On the other hand, you're the one that should be answering questions here. Just the fact you even brought this up leaves one wanting to know what your agenda in doing so is. It seems most likely that you're trying to justify racist views based on this 'evidence', and, not unsurprisingly, the same type of rationalization is found in nearly every mention of this information online. What exactly is your concern? | ||
outqast
United States287 Posts
On December 09 2008 01:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects. Basically. You need a large enough natural experiment where "race" was specifically defined and cultural and historical impact would be at a minimum. I don't know where you would find such a place where you could conduct such a natural experiment because racism is so prevalent all over the world, it would confound any study. You would need some major internment camp like Nazi Germany type deal to make it work. 3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be? Implications for me or for the entire world? For me, it would be exactly the argument made in your article. It would be a statistic, that on average some people with a particular characteristic would be "smarter" than others. It doesn't mean that an individual level every comparison between people of different races would be true. It also would not be an explanation of the level of economic development between Africa and European countries/Asian countries as your esteemed Dr. Watson would try to suggest. For the world, it would give credence to a lot of eugenics nuts who would use it for all types of terrible, and illogical justifications. | ||
outqast
United States287 Posts
i dont know. You can't just call any set of random questions an "intelligence" test, in the technical sense. What makes you think this is one? Does it correlate with academic achievement or long-term life outcomes? Brain sizes? Reaction times? Short-term memory? Results on intelligence tests that obviously have nothing to do with knowledge, like the backward digit span? Real IQ tests at least happen to meet all those criteria. This really gets to the heart of the problem. The article you posted dismissed this question, but did not really answer what intelligence was. The whole point of the BITCH was to illustrate the illusive nature of trying to define intelligence. Lets debunk a couple things. 1) Brain size has absolutely no correlation with "intelligence." I'm no expert, but I believe it has to do with the number of creases for particular part of the brain that has to do with reasoning. There was one study that there was a correlation with the ratio of brains to eye size in different mammals with intelligence, but no causational effect. 2) Reaction times and short-term memory can be "trained," for example in the Marines, Navy, they train you to have quick reaction times and better short-term memory. While this is some function of genetics, some of the "smartest" most "intelligent" people I know have terrible reactions times and short-term memory. Let me tell you I'm taking a class from one Nobel laureate this quarter and I have played softball with some very famous economists, and reaction time and short-term memory have nothing to do with intelligence. 3) Again academic achievement/long term outcomes have something to do with genetic "intelligence," but more to do with your cultural and sociological background. I don't think I need any more explanation than that. I've dismissed some of these qualifications of intelligence, but what is true intelligence? In my opinion it has a lot to do with creativity and innovation, the ability to see and put things together that other people might not see. For example, Albert Einstein was a genius because he imagined and predicted physics that no one could really observe or verify. How exactly do you measure creativity? Certainly not by some test (although Einstein scored extremely high on the IQ test).why it keeps double posting for me. | ||
HnR)hT
![]()
United States3468 Posts
Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence". | ||
HnR)hT
![]()
United States3468 Posts
| ||
HnR)hT
![]()
United States3468 Posts
On December 09 2008 01:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects. But you can always "explain" any result by making up elaborate socioeconomic theories. At some point you'd need to counter data and observed fact with data and observed fact. Eugenics. So you think Eugenics would be justified if it turned out that races differ in average intelligence (while also thinking that it isn't justified now)? | ||
HnR)hT
![]()
United States3468 Posts
| ||
| ||