Re: Could anyone explain this please?

From: P.Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 07/08/04 

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 23:20:32 GMT

"DesertCactus" <desertcactus@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.0407060510.22ec8c39@posting.google.com...
> Going back to the original post. The website states the below:
>
> "When "black" genes (genes that indicate African descent) are not
> visible to the naked eye, they do not appear to have much effect. In
> other words, children who have a black parent, grandparent, or
> ancestor, but who look white and live within a white community, do not
> have lower test scores than whites from completely European descent."
>
> And what P.comm stated in the 'Black genes more dominant by a ratio of
> 4 to 1?' thread:
>
> "What I know is this. People with a very small amount of black
> ancestry are
> usually considered black because they LOOK kinda black. They look
> black to
> other blacks, to themselves, and to everyone else. It's a LOOK that
> people
> do notice.
>
> When blacks pass as white - totally pass, if they marry other blacks
> that
> also totally pass as white, forever from then on their kids look
> white.
> It's like whatever makes the "whole black appearance" comes in a
> package -
> and once it's bred out - it's gone and it stays gone unless the person
> mates
> with a black again. So it's my opinion that the ENTIRE "appearance"
> that
> people notice is a package, much like the package in ONE GENE that can
> make
> one lineage look and behave like another lineage if that gene is
> inserted.
> Such experiments were done - but not on humans. The entire appearance
> and
> behavior - the whole package - was in ONE GENE."
>
> People who 'look white' as the article says, are probably going to be
> overwhelmingly white, to the point where it's hardly a relevent point
> anymore.
>
> I don't think the 3 reasons the website gives under the hereditry
> section fot the score difference not being genetic are very good at
> all.(http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/scholarsprovide.htm)
>
> The below is what they state:
>
> Jencks and Phillips say that the argument over the genetic or
> hereditary component of intelligence has raged throughout most of the
> twentieth century. Many studies have been done to try to tease out the
> effects of heredity on intelligence. Jencks and Phillips say that
> while heredity clearly plays some part, the research is still unclear
> on just how important it is. They say that research on racially mixed
> children, research on black children raised in white homes, and
> research on racially mixed children in other countries provide three
> tentative conclusions:
>
> Black or mixed-race children raised in white households have higher
> test scores than black or mixed-race children raised in black
> households.
> When "black" genes (genes that indicate African descent) are not
> visible to the naked eye, they do not appear to have much effect. In
> other words, children who have a black parent, grandparent, or
> ancestor, but who look white and live within a white community, do not
> have lower test scores than whites from completely European descent.
> In America, when black children raised in white homes reach
> adolescence, their test scores drop (indicating a change in
> environment rather than a change in the students' innate abilities).
> Jencks and Phillips conclude that:
>
> ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an
> open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in
> the black-white gap." (p. 20)
>
> Any comments on the 3 reasons they give for it not being genetic?
> Thanks.

Check out what people who say it IS genetic have to say - especially about
identical twins who were raised apart from each other and didn't even know
each other :) Shockley had a lot to say about that - and Jensen agreed with
it, I think. Just go check it.