Anybody who makes social judgments based on SAT scores is writing from the ivory tower.

I suppose there might be a more meaningless number -- the October productivity estimate comes to mind - - but not many.

No public policy will ever ameliorate the group-level differences in intelligence between blacks and other racial groups because those differences are traceable to genes. There is increasing evidence of the heritability of intelligence, the relationship of intelligence to particular neural networks in the brain, and of genes which are correlated with higher IQs. The difference in IQ between blacks and whites is approximately 1 standard deviation.

The author of this post is expressing a noble but futile sentiment: The anti-intellectual culture of many blacks is an experssion of their biology.

SAT scores are a good estimate of general intelligence: IQ scores and SAT scores are well correlated.

You do realize that those neural networks are built (mainly in early childhood), rather than genetically encoded, yes? And while there are some aspects of intelligence that are genetic, you are vastly, vastly discounting the whole "nurture" aspect, which is a real and observable thing.

"The anti-intellectual culture of many blacks is an experssion of their biology." - - poppycock.

The anti-intellectual CULTURE of many blacks is an expression of their CULTURE. This sounds like a tautology, but it's worth pondering.

Those Asian-American groups which demonstrate high academic performance do not have higher IQ, they have "unreasonable" respect for education.

Here's what I agree with: "But the Thernstroms cite persuasive evidence that an extraordinarily high percentage of black parents and children, including many well-off families, share a self-crippling attitude that working hard in school is not important."

"Working hard in school is not important" also applies to many white kids, and accounts for our poor American performance relative to some other leading industrialized countries. Our nation needs to work on attitude, both of students and their parents - - through ads, campaigns, and social groups.

Attitude accounts for the success of home schooling; of charter schools which REQUIRE that students' homework be signed by a parent; even, in fact, the success of expensive private schools. The dominant SCREENING FACTOR in these cases is attitude. When voucher schools appear, the public school principles will justifiably complain that thay lose their good students - - family attitude will be at play.

"...parents and children, including many well-off families, share a self-crippling attitude that working hard in school is not important."

Harry:

Don't do well on standardized tests, eh?

Science, such a blessing.

Actually, Orrin, just the reverse. My SATs were higher than those of any other person I've ever met.
(No, I didn't make 1600, but I've never met anybody who did.)

I am only too aware of the weakness of the props under them, though, which helps account for my disdain for them.

Timothy's got it. So did Gray, a long time ago. I still think his line about "mute, inglorious Miltons" is the most profound observation about intelligence and education ever made.

You do realize that those neural networks are built (mainly in early childhood), rather than genetically encoded, yes? And while there are some aspects of intelligence that are genetic, you are vastly, vastly discounting the whole "nurture" aspect, which is a real and observable thing.

Timothy: Of course I realize this. What I'm trying to say is, you cannot separate Nature and Nurture. Most estimates of the heritability of IQ hover around 80%-- that doesn't leave a lot of room for environmental effects. Further, these estimates don't take into account the increasing heritability of IQ as one grows older. That is, the older one is, the more like one's parents is your IQ. Thus, the role of the environment actually decreases with age, which is exactly opposity what a "nurturist" might expect.

Secondly, the attitudes toward education expressed by various racial groups is, I believe, as much of function of genes as it is of learning-- and I also believe that the predisposition to learn certain things (like attitudes toward education) is also inherited.

Thus, in most situations, a child will grow up in an environment that is an "extended phenotype" of its parents and his genome. Look at the typical environment in the inner city. That is not the result of racism, or governmental neglect, it is the result of blacks making choices about how they want to live. One only has to look at a family that adopted a child to see that the behavior of parents actually has very little influence on the outcome of the child.

Those Asian-American groups which demonstrate high academic performance do not have higher IQ, they have "unreasonable" respect for education.

Wrong, I'm afraid. Asians test higher than blacks and whites on most IQ tests. Ashkenazi Jews test the highest, 1.5 standard deviations from whites.

I hope Bradley is wrong.

I'm afraid he is right.

He's wrong, all right.

Of course, IQ and SAT tests correlate. They're the same test.

You ever notice how you never meet anyone who tests well who you think is stupid nor who tests poorly but you think is bright?

And, of course, idf Darwinism has any accuracy at all there must be intelligence variations across the races and across differing environments.

" One only has to look at a family that adopted a child to see that the behavior of parents actually has very little influence on the outcome of the child."

How many adoptees do you know? From what you just said, it sounds like "very few."