Originally Posted by deacongirl
... But to me the following is crucial:
From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
"Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. differential is indirect...In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years � a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.

Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. This mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as a society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to develop their minds."

I agree, and would add that any conclusions based on physical differences in the brain are bound to be problematic, because of how the environment affects the brain (London cabbie effect and scads of other evidence), even in utero (subpar nutrition of poor mothers, who of course are disproportionately minorities, can affect birth and brain weight).

I would also expect the Flynn effect to be working overtime for less-disadvantaged-all-the-time minorities, as long as they haven't reached the plateau.

Striving to increase my rate of flow, and fight forum gloopiness. sick