Why aren't African-Americans achieving all that they could? American blacks are twice as likely to be in poverty as non-blacks, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and they make nearly $5,000 a year less, on average. What exactly is standing in their way?
Thus begins a fascinating article by Tim Harford, auther of The Undercover Economist
What do you think is to blame? Lack of education? Lack of personal responsibility? Discrimination?
11 comments:
I blame the influx of foreign talent in the NBA. For every dollar that a Dirk Nowitski or Andrew Bogut makes, that one less dollar going to black America.
Add it up.
-RG
What do you think is to blame? Lack of education? Lack of personal responsibility? Discrimination?
I don't think you can point to any single answer as it is probably mroe likely a combination of the factors you mention (although if you want to force a decision I think discrimination is the easiest to choose as a valid answer). You could probably pose the same question as to why there are more African American inmates on death row.
I.Q.
Oneway does have a point - "g," or generalized intelligence is commonly measured in non-scientific settings with IQ. The single best predictor of wealth, achievement, and many other things is g.
Interestingly, g has virtually no correlation with any measures of happiness above and beyond wealth, and can actually result in lower happiness than would be predicted.
Go figure.
-Chairman
The economic and status disparities between African-Americans of slavery's descent and Caucasians is far beyond what any supposed I.Q. difference could explain.
Try again.
Try again? You'll probably find this more palatable:
G.W.
G.W.
Hard to take your comments seriously when they so quickly degrade into stereotypes and unsupported assertions.
G.W.? I like stereotypes and unsupported assertions, but I need to know what they are.
Westy, do you have a source that suggests that IQ doesn't explain a major difference in income between blacks and whites? Just curious to see if the methodology is sound. Research has found that very strong correlations between IQ and income (with corelations around 0.5, I think), explaining something like 25% of the variance (which is a very high number in research, despite sounding low).
A much dumber, but interesting explanation is age of males. Older employees make more than younger employees. Black males live 6 years less than white males. Income rises with age - per capita income. That would also be a huge difference. Of course, explanations of age differences are varied, but will likely include nutrition, violence, and genetic factors.
-Chairman
By saying G.W., I think oneway was implying I'd blame George W. Bush like liberals do for everything. Obviously that's unrelated.
In regard to the predictive power of IQ, there are two reasons I don't think that is the most likely cause.
First, even if one accepts that black IQ could be lower, the difference would not match the difference in earning power we see. Thus, there are other important elements present, which therefore should be examined.
Secondly, this implies that IQ is static and not predicated on these other factors, which may, if they do shape your IQ, be better causation factors. Much evidence seems to show that IQ as it is usually tested is more fluid than a strict intelligence test should be.
Westy
How boring. I was hoping that GW was Gang Warfare.
With regard to your two objections to IQ:
1) You're assuming a linear relationship, which is what most studies would say is true over the entire range of possibilities. However, at the very low and very high end, it's not likely to be linear. After all, people below a certain IQ will not have any income, and then it will ramp up quickly to something like minimum wage. Here, small differences in IQ would explain larger differences.
Your second argument is definitely an interesting one. In some research, people argue that "g" should be divided into "gf" and "gc", for "fluid intelligence" and crystalized intelligence." Fluid intelligence is closer to the "raw ability" and achievement tests and most IQ test measure (and traditional notions of "g"), while crystallized intelligence is context specific knowledge. You're right in that you'd figure that crystallized intelligence should matter. However, the fact that the traditional "g," or IQ, is found to be significant suggests that it is so, depsite expectations that it wouldn't be as much so - sort of strengthening findings.
Good points. Really, more research is needed. Hopefully, despite its political incorrectness, it happens.
In regard to this issue, I'm mostly just eagerly anticipating continued research results from Roland Fryer. If there was one person who I'd love to be working with right now, it would probably be him.
Post a Comment