I recall the US government discontinuing its civil-service test (called PACE) in early 1980s because it was supposedly discriminatory (presumably against minorities). The inside joke amongst government new hires (who had to take this easy test) was that it discriminated against dumb people.
Greg Cochrane had discussion over at West Hunter about the meaning of IQ 70 in white and black students. Because the average for black students is about 1SD lower, Dr Cochrane and several others suggested that an IQ 70 might more likely be a generalised depression of abilities in blacks but evidence of specific injury or genetic disease in whites, with corresponding uneven impairment. That is, the white children would be more likely to have subtests of 50 and 90, while the black students with eventual IQ 70 would have subtests that hovered around that range. The consensus was that this would result in different functionality, with each group showing better abilities to perform at a survivable minimum in different domains. Intriguing, and those who worked with the impaired agreed that this looked to be true from their experience.
The truth is uncomfortable and so is unsayable. The Chinese have no such reticence.
Education is all well and good, however, its substance must not be unilinear. Education must fortify critical thinking, eg. reason and rationale.
The contemporary western education systems are ideological and class based to maintain a status quo.
The classic or Renaissance education systems were superior in that they furnished students with the skills to master any discipline by the age of twelve, however were consigned to the upper strata of society.
The Trivium and Quadrivium method of education is far superior.
I note that Tooby and Cosmides have written at length about highly specific intelligence modules, delivered by evolution, and sometimes called 'mental organs'. With one example being sexual jealousy. Anatomically, I'm aware of one specific location, the 'letter box' in which neurons used for face recognition are repurposed for letter recognition. The more specific the 'mental organs' the easier it is to see differences directly attributal to genetic differences.
"Hope et al. (2018) examined bias in a British postgraduate exam for internal medicine doctors, finding that only eight of 2,773 questions were biased."
If you look at 2,773 questions, you'd expect many to appear biased by chance. Sure enough the paper says:
"For comparison, using a too-liberal procedure that did not correct for multiple comparisons yielded a total of 645 significant results. None of the nominally significant effects reached a Bonferroni corrected level of 9.01 × 10^− 6."
The criticism of the beggar question makes no sense. Yes, you want the beggar to keep the money for himself... which is precisely why raising the possibility that he'll do so as an objection to giving to him directly is a non-sequitur that scores zero, right? I think Williams, the judge, and then you have all gotten confused by there being one negative too many and ended up accepting an objection that is nonsensical.
In the PASE v Hannon case cited (link given broken, search instead on 'pase v hannon' and go to Justia site), the judge states in the decision FOR defendants (Chicago Schools administering IQ tests):
"Plaintiffs [black parents seeking to stop Chicago Schools' use of IQ tests in determining sufficiently "retarded" children to go into special school program] argue that the racial bias of the IQ tests is shown circumstantially by the fact that blacks, although possessing the same innate mental ability as whites, do not score as well as whites on the tests. Plaintiffs say this of itself shows the tests must be measuring the amount of culture-specific information acquired by whites and not by blacks. There is no dispute in this case about the equality of innate intellectual capacity. Defendants assert no less strongly than plaintiffs that there are no genetic differences in mental capacity." Description [ ] is mine.
You are being too kind.
I think it is more like:
“I don’t like the results, so the test must be biased.”
I recall the US government discontinuing its civil-service test (called PACE) in early 1980s because it was supposedly discriminatory (presumably against minorities). The inside joke amongst government new hires (who had to take this easy test) was that it discriminated against dumb people.
Greg Cochrane had discussion over at West Hunter about the meaning of IQ 70 in white and black students. Because the average for black students is about 1SD lower, Dr Cochrane and several others suggested that an IQ 70 might more likely be a generalised depression of abilities in blacks but evidence of specific injury or genetic disease in whites, with corresponding uneven impairment. That is, the white children would be more likely to have subtests of 50 and 90, while the black students with eventual IQ 70 would have subtests that hovered around that range. The consensus was that this would result in different functionality, with each group showing better abilities to perform at a survivable minimum in different domains. Intriguing, and those who worked with the impaired agreed that this looked to be true from their experience.
The truth is uncomfortable and so is unsayable. The Chinese have no such reticence.
It’s just another Brick in the Wall.
Education is all well and good, however, its substance must not be unilinear. Education must fortify critical thinking, eg. reason and rationale.
The contemporary western education systems are ideological and class based to maintain a status quo.
The classic or Renaissance education systems were superior in that they furnished students with the skills to master any discipline by the age of twelve, however were consigned to the upper strata of society.
The Trivium and Quadrivium method of education is far superior.
The bias in intelligence tests is against the stupid.
I note that Tooby and Cosmides have written at length about highly specific intelligence modules, delivered by evolution, and sometimes called 'mental organs'. With one example being sexual jealousy. Anatomically, I'm aware of one specific location, the 'letter box' in which neurons used for face recognition are repurposed for letter recognition. The more specific the 'mental organs' the easier it is to see differences directly attributal to genetic differences.
"Hope et al. (2018) examined bias in a British postgraduate exam for internal medicine doctors, finding that only eight of 2,773 questions were biased."
If you look at 2,773 questions, you'd expect many to appear biased by chance. Sure enough the paper says:
"For comparison, using a too-liberal procedure that did not correct for multiple comparisons yielded a total of 645 significant results. None of the nominally significant effects reached a Bonferroni corrected level of 9.01 × 10^− 6."
Probably none of this 'bias' is even real.
The criticism of the beggar question makes no sense. Yes, you want the beggar to keep the money for himself... which is precisely why raising the possibility that he'll do so as an objection to giving to him directly is a non-sequitur that scores zero, right? I think Williams, the judge, and then you have all gotten confused by there being one negative too many and ended up accepting an objection that is nonsensical.
Either that or I'm the one confused!
In the PASE v Hannon case cited (link given broken, search instead on 'pase v hannon' and go to Justia site), the judge states in the decision FOR defendants (Chicago Schools administering IQ tests):
"Plaintiffs [black parents seeking to stop Chicago Schools' use of IQ tests in determining sufficiently "retarded" children to go into special school program] argue that the racial bias of the IQ tests is shown circumstantially by the fact that blacks, although possessing the same innate mental ability as whites, do not score as well as whites on the tests. Plaintiffs say this of itself shows the tests must be measuring the amount of culture-specific information acquired by whites and not by blacks. There is no dispute in this case about the equality of innate intellectual capacity. Defendants assert no less strongly than plaintiffs that there are no genetic differences in mental capacity." Description [ ] is mine.