Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 2 3 4 5 13 Next   

Ethnic Differences in the UK

#11
Quote:... immigrants

Isn't such name calling going to reflect poorly on this journal? I find the description puzzling at best...
 Reply
#12
(2014-Aug-26, 13:58:43)Gilfoyle Wrote:
Quote:... immigrants

Isn't such name calling going to reflect poorly on this journal? I find the description puzzling at best...


This is a forum thread other than official papers' review, not a journal. But I see your point, I toned it down a little. But I cannot hide the truth that immigrants that land in Italy are in a different state from those who arrive in the UK. It'd be a huge hypocrisy to deny it, and it would damage first of all the immigrants. People are already not enough aware of what is happening and the humanitarian catastrophe that happens daily along the southern coasts of Europe. Shall we pretend they land off their rubber boats dressed in expensive suits?
 Reply
#13
(2014-Aug-26, 14:15:28)Duxide Wrote: Shall we pretend they land off their rubber boats dressed in expensive suits?


I'm narrowly focusing on the Negroid (Black) - European Caucasoid (White) gaps. If there aren't such, I don't expect to find European/North African Caucasoid ones. Jamaicans, in fact, did come to the U.K. in the '50s and '60s by boat. And they had lower average measured IQs to start. But now, by the third-fourth generation the large difference among the youth has greatly narrowed to vanished. This can't be explained simply in terms of genetic assimilation and selective immigration.

(2014-Aug-26, 06:24:51)Emil Wrote: Anyway, I can read Dutch somewhat because it is close to German and Danish. Google Translate can make it semi-readable to people who speak English. Can you link to the report?


Obviously, if I had the report I could read it with a translator. But I need help finding one containing more recent Cito scores. The 2011 appendix, which contained CITO scores from '94 to '08, was called: Bijlagen Jaarrapport integratie 2011. The d-values declined significantly over the period (Turks (39%), Moroccans (45%), West Indians (39%), and Surinamese (16%). So I would like to see the d-value as of 2011/2012. If the Dutch West Indies gaps are also low < 0.5 SD and trending lower, this will be more evidence in favor of an environmental position. We will have another case of well documented differences (Lynn, 2008; Nijenhuis, 2004) -- indeed documented g-loaded ones! -- that diminished greatly.
 Reply
#14
I think it is dangerous and very misguided to draw conclusions only based on data but not on theory. In social science, doing this will cost you a lot. Environmental hypotheses predict lower gaps in countries with better environment, in particular, more egalitarian countries, those countries where the poors have higher social mobility and opportunity. The fact that HH prediction of meaningful differences everywhere is falsified does not make environmental hypothesis true or truer. All is needed is to show that in the UK, the environment is no better than in the US. This is sufficient to refute environmental hypotheses, regardless of the size of the gap. If you're merely saying that the gap is 0.5 SD in the UK, you're fine. But if you're trying to give a win for either of these competing hypotheses while in fact none of them fit the data, you're really in trouble.
 Reply
#15
(2014-Aug-26, 23:06:08)menghu1001 Wrote: I think it is dangerous and very misguided to draw conclusions only based on data but not on theory. In social science, doing this will cost you a lot. Environmental hypotheses predict lower gaps in countries with better environment, in particular, more egalitarian countries.


Let's start here: Do you agree that the UK gap, as of 2010, is surprisingly small i.e., between 0 and 0.5 SD for < 15 years old Whites and Blacks? We have converging evidence for this:

normative and birth cohort IQ data
achievement test data

If not, then I have some more digging to do. The things is, this is a lot of work and emailing around, if I'm just going to get B.S. in return.
 Reply
#16
(2014-Aug-26, 09:46:42)Duxide Wrote: When I analyzed the PISA immigrant dataset, one of the first things I noticed was the low difference in scores between immigrants and natives in the UK, which is much smaller than that found in pretty much all the other Western countries. To me this is likely due to selective migration and has only one explanation: the geographical position of Britain and its geological status of an island. Think about it, Britain is an island far north in the Atlantic which admits immigrants only by airplane. People who can afford to fly are in general wealthier and better educated. In continental Europe we get immigrants from clandestine land routes (e.g. West Asia-Turkey-Germany) or even worse, on tiny boats manned by bandits that daily land in Sicily when they're lucky enough not to drown. When I'll hear of a rubber boat full of immigrants coming straigth from Morocco landing in Dover, then I'll reconsider my position. But until immigrants land in Britain at Heathrow like normal human beings, I will attribute these differences to the above explanation.


Not only is it an Island. It is not a member of the Schengen agreement (open borders). Everybody who travels to the UK gets their passport controlled. This is not the case for e.g. Germany.

One can take the train to the UK from France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel
 Reply
#17
(2014-Aug-27, 00:00:09)Chuck Wrote: Let's start here: Do you agree that the UK gap, as of 2010, is surprisingly small i.e., between 0 and 0.5 SD for < 15 years old Whites and Blacks? We have converging evidence for this:

normative and birth cohort IQ data
achievement test data


You already know my answer. I have nothing more to add. It's the strong fact. There is surely lower IQ gap in the UK, and it's not fluke. For the reason, I'm more inclined that the environmental hypothesis is more likely true than HH. But, as you know also, I don't have a good argument, one that theoretically makes sense and is empirically supported. Your argument, if my memory is correct, was that UK blacks may have different attitudes, and the burden of the history of black slavery in the USA is irrelevant to the UK, etc. These are more or less the arguments I favor as well. But these arguments are so speculative, and extremely if not impossible to test, that I don't know what to make of them. From what we know in the USA, black attitudes are unlikely to cause this strong gap in the USA. Obviously, some people can say that what is true in the US is not necessarily applicable to the UK, because they believe the environments are different, etc. A lot of talk. But they still have to prove it. Even the period of desegregation in the US has not caused a secular decline in US gaps, or perhaps only for children. If such strong environmental shift has barely an effect on adult gap, why would I think that the UK is so particularly different than the US ?
 Reply
#18
(2014-Aug-27, 01:09:10)Emil Wrote: Not only is it an Island. It is not a member of the Schengen agreement (open borders). Everybody who travels to the UK gets their passport controlled. This is not the case for e.g. Germany.

One can take the train to the UK from France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel


Yes, I thought everybody knew that it's not a member of the Schengen area. Of course that, coupled with its being an island (the train arrives at a single entry point, whereas countries surrounded by land can be entered by infinite routes (train, car, foot and from any direction)), makes it much easier to select immigrants.
 Reply
#19
I'm reading Dataclysm, a book exploring online data especially related to 23andme.com (huge dating site). There is a chapter on interrace ratings which show the usual patterns, namely that euros(male and female) rate africans lower. They however mention that this isn't the case in the UK. If the theory is that mean g levels cause stereotypes which cause these rating patterns, then perhaps the africans in the UK really are smarter. Unfortunately, they don't share much of the data.

Be advised, the chapter is written by someone who appears to have the standard 'liberal' views of race.
 Reply
#20
(2014-Sep-28, 07:39:21)Emil Wrote: I'm reading Dataclysm, a book exploring online data especially related to 23andme.com (huge dating site). There is a chapter on interrace ratings which show the usual patterns, namely that euros(male and female) rate africans lower. They however mention that this isn't the case in the UK. If the theory is that mean g levels cause stereotypes which cause these rating patterns, then perhaps the africans in the UK really are smarter. Unfortunately, they don't share much of the data.


This is unlikely because the fairly representative adult (16 to 65 with mean ages of about 40) samples which I found show a difference of about 0.7 SD. These were from 2000, 2007, and 2012 (see attached, for example), plus two others from 2003 and 2011 which provided numeracy/literacy pass rates. So if there was a substantial narrowing, it was basically with the 2000 birth cohort. And I don't imagine that these kids would have been the referential point in the rating study mentioned.

(There was also an ETS SAT evaluation study in 2008 which showed a 0.7 SD or so difference. In 2012, when the MCS kids were 12 the evaluation study kids would have been in their 20s. So, again, the narrowing would have to have been recent.)


Attached Files
.xls   UKgaps2014.xls (Size: 17.5 KB / Downloads: 412)
 Reply
 Previous 1 2 3 4 5 13 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)