This piece by Anya Kamenetz is an excellent brief summary to standardized testing. It explains in lay men’s terms the difference between formative and summative assessment. It explains the concepts of reliability and validity.
It points out that schools have tested students throughout history, but leaves out a few vital facts.
Historically, most tests were written by classroom teachers for their own students, not by mega-corporations. Teachers want to know whether students learned what they were taught.
It does not explain the roots of standardized testing, which were firmly planted in the concept of intelligence or IQ. It does not explain that the early twentieth century psychologists who created the first standardized IQ tests believed that IQ was fixed and innate. They also firmly believed that IQ was determined by race and ethnicity. The most eminent psychologists wrote books and articles that we would today consider racist.
If you want to learn more about the history of standardized testing, read my book “Left Back,” chapter 4. The chapter title is “This Brutal Pessimism,” which is a quote from Alfred Binet, who was the father of group testing.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m just not encouraged that already Louisiana is spinning the results of the trial run of the national tests.
Compare these two reports of whether students “like” the PARCC tests. The first is from the state of Louisiana and the second is from a newspaper.
This is the State:
“The Louisiana Department of Education today announced the results of a survey of 25,000 students who took the PARCC test in April, showing students overwhelmingly prefer taking the computer-based PARCC tests over paper and pencil tests, with 78 percent favoring the online assessment. Eighty-seven percent said it was “easy” to complete online questions, and when asked about the time they had to take the test, more than 92 percent said they finished early or on time.
“This survey of Louisiana students validates our state’s strategy to use an online test,” said State Superintendent John White. “With nearly 80 percent of the students surveyed indicating they use a computer or tablet nearly every day, it only makes sense that we test them the same way.”
Of those students taking the computer-based test during the first phase, nearly 70 percent said the test was easier or about the same as their current school work. And, when asked if there were questions about things they have not learned this school year nearly 85 percent said there were none or few questions. Students were also asked about the functionality of the computer-based test and how easy or difficult it was to type their answers. Eighty-seven percent said they had no problems entering their answers; nearly the same percentage said they did not have any difficulty moving back and forth between the passages on the test and that information was easily obtained.”
The state of Louisiana released these results on the eve of a vote on the Common Core (so that’s interesting timing, huh?) and it looks like they left one important fact out: only half the test-takers took the survey! This is the newspaper report:
“In the trial run, White said test takers were given the option of filling out the survey and about half did — around 12,500.”
Why doesn’t the state promotion of the testing tell the reader that “80%” of students is really “80% of 50% of students”?
If I’m reading this right, they’re promoting this as “80% of test takers” when it’s really “80% of the 50% who answered those questions on the test”.
Are they already spinning these numbers for political purposes?
http://www.louisianabelieves.com/newsroom/news-releases/2014/05/05/survey-nearly-80-percent-of-louisana-students-who-completed-parcc-test-prefer-computer-based-test-to-paper-and-pencil-test
LikeLike
Here’s the newspaper report I referenced in the prior comment. Compare it to the State of Louisiana press release:
http://theadvocate.com/home/9080875-125/students-give-common-core-tests
Did 80% of the students like the test or did 80% of the 50% who answered the question like the test? “80% of 25,000” is a very different number than “80% of 12,500”, is it not?
And why are they releasing partial results of student surveys? Is that timed, politically?
LikeLike
So much for the ability of the Louisiana State officials to interpret data
LikeLike
What are the safeguards that are in place right now so that states with (perhaps!) political agendas (so, you know, ALL states) can’t spin the results of the national Common Core testing?
I know it’s unimaginable that state politicians with a political agenda that is perhaps not based on pure science would ever, ever spin anything, but just humor me 🙂
Are we going to get partial releases of student surveys that generate favorable press or is there some kind of internal safeguard against the use of various numbers generated by students taking these tests? What’s the process? Is there oversight? Where would the oversight come from? The testing consortiums? The governor? Where?
LikeLike
From the FAIR TESTING website:
.Criterion- and Standards- Referenced Tests
Criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) are intended to measure how well a person has learned a specific body of knowledge and skills. Multiple-choice tests most people take to get a driver’s license and on-the-road driving tests are both examples of criterion-referenced tests. As on most other CRTs, it is possible for everyone to earn a passing score if they know about driving rules and if they drive reasonably well.
In contrast, norm-referenced tests (NRTs) are made to compare test takers to each other. On an NRT driving test, test-takers would be compared as to who knew most or least about driving rules or who drove better or worse. Scores would be reported as a percentage rank with half scoring above and half below the mid-point (see NRT fact sheet).
In education, CRTs usually are made to determine whether a student has learned the material taught in a specific grade or course. An algebra CRT would include questions based on what was supposed to be taught in algebra classes. It would not include geometry questions or more advanced algebra than was in the curriculum. Most all students who took algebra could pass this test if they were taught well and they studied enough and the test was well-made.
On a standardized CRT (one taken by students in many schools), the passing or “cut-off” score is usually set by a committee of experts, while in a classroom the teacher sets the passing score. In both cases, deciding the passing score is subjective, not objective. Sometimes cut scores have been set in a way that maximizes the number of low income or minority students who fail the test. A small change in the cut score would not change the meaning of the test but would greatly increase minority pass rates.
Some CRT’s, such as many state tests, are not based on a specific curriculum, but on a more general idea of what students might be taught. Therefore, they may not match the curriculum. For example, a state grade 10 math test might include areas of math which some students have not studied.
Standards-Referenced Tests
A recent variation of criterion-referenced testing is “standards-referenced testing” or “standards based assessment.” Many states and districts have adopted content standards (or “curriculum frameworks”) which describe what students should know and be able to do in different subjects at various grade levels. They also have performance standards that define how much of the content standards students should know to reach the “basic” or “proficient” or “advanced” level in the subject area. Tests are then based on the standards and the results are reported in terms of these “levels,” which, of course, represent human judgement. In some states, performance standards have been steadily increased, so that students continually have to know more to meet the same level.
Educators often disagree about the quality of a given set of standards. Standards are supposed to cover the important knowledge and skills students should learn — they define the “big picture.” State standards should be well-written and reasonable. Some state standards have been criticized for including too much, for being too vague, for being ridiculously difficult, for undermining higher quality local curriculum and instruction, and for taking sides in educational and political controversies. If the standards are flawed or limited, tests based on them also will be. In any event, standards enforced by state tests will have — and are meant to have — a strong impact on local curriculum and instruction.
Even if standards are of high quality, it is important to know how well a particular test actually matches the standards. In particular, are all the important parts of the standards measured by the test? Often, many important topics or skills are not assessed.
A major reason for this is that most state exams still rely almost entirely on multiple-choice and short-answer questions. Such tests cannot measure many important kinds of learning, such as the ability to conduct and report on a science experiment, to analyze and interpret information to present a reasonable explanation of the causes of the Civil War, to do an art project or a research paper, or to engage in serious discussion or make a public presentation (see fact sheet on multiple-choice tests). A few standards-based exams have gone beyond multiple-choice and short-answer, but even then they may not be balanced or complete measures of the standards.
CRTs and NRTs
Sometimes one kind of test is used for two purposes at the same time. In addition to ranking test takers in relation to a national sample of students, a NRT might be used to decide if students have learned the content they were taught. A CRT might be used to assess mastery and to rank students or schools based on their scores. In many states, students have to pass either an NRT or a CRT to obtain a diploma or be promoted. This is a serious misuse of tests. Because schools serving wealthier students usually score higher than other schools, ranking often just compares schools based on community wealth. This practice offers no real help for schools to improve.
NRTs are designed to sort and rank students “on the curve,” not to see if they met a standard or criterion. Therefore, NRTs should not be used to assess whether students have met standards. However, in some states or districts a NRT is used to measure student learning in relation to standards. Specific cut-off scores on the NRT are then chosen (usually by a committee) to separate levels of achievement on the standards. In some cases, a CRT is made using technical procedures developed for NRTs, causing the CRT to sort students in ways that are inappropriate for standards-based decisions.
Sometimes the NRT is changed to more closely fit the state standards and to report standards- referenced scores. As a result, a state could report that 35 percent of its students were proficient according to state standards (depending, of course, on where the cut-off score is set), but that 60 percent of its students were above the national average score on the norm-referenced test. Adapting an NRT also means that while everything on the test is in the standards, much of what is in the standards is not in the tests.
Conclusion
If standardized tests are used at all, CRTs make more sense for schools than do NRTs. However, they should be based on relevant, high-quality standards and curriculum and should make the least possible use of multiple-choice and short-answer questions. As with all tests, CRTs and NRTs, no matter what they are called, should not control curriculum and instruction, and important decisions about students, teachers or schools should not be based solely or automatically on test scores.
LikeLike
I agree entirely that Left Back is really important (and really engaging) reading and is great on the subject of standardized testing. I highly, highly recommend it. On the origins of that testing, see also The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lemann. See also almost anything written by
Gerald Bracey.
LikeLike
Is it that Louisiana officials can’t interpret data or Louisiana officials decided “80%” was a much better number to trumpet and “validate” (his word) their decisions?
IF TRUE that it’s “80% of the 50% of students who responded to the survey” rather than “80%” it doesn’t “validate” anything and this doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence on how these CC-generated numbers will be used.
I would think the testing consortiums wouldn’t do partial releases of results, because that is just a recipe for political spin and basing policy decisions on factors other than that of what the students actually think about the tests. What if the half who didn’t answer the survey questions had a lot of trouble with online testing or the test questions? I thought the point of surveying them was to improve the tests?
LikeLike
What if the half who didn’t answer the survey questions had a lot of trouble with online testing or the test questions?
Yes, the folks who issued that comment really need a lesson in sampling. I think that the Dept gets a “not proficient” on this, agreed?
LikeLike
It seems pretty obvious that this is just spin.
LikeLike
Missed, big time.
LikeLike
Stephen Jay Gould also wrote a book called the “Mismeasure of Man” in response to the controversial (to say the least) book “The Bell Curve.”
LikeLike
The Bell Curve is purest pseudoscience.
LikeLike
Actually the Mismeasure of Man was published in 1981, the Bell Curve in 1994.
LikeLike
Nothing done by students on the new national assessments remotely resembles real reading and writing. In other words, what is done by students on these assessments is extraordinarily inauthentic, or unlike anything that actual readers and writers do in the real world. Therefore, these are not, and cannot be, valid assessments of real reading and writing.
Attainment in ELA involves world knowledge (knowledge of what) and procedural knowledge (knowledge of how). The new national assessments test very, very little of the former (and do not set out to test the former explicitly at all) and purport to be tests of the latter but are based upon standards for the latter that are so vaguely formulated that one cannot operationalize them sufficiently to assess them validly. Therefore, these are not, and cannot be, valid assessments of attainment in ELA.
Other varieties of assessment–diagnostic and formative and performative assessment–actually serve some educational purpose. These national summative assessments serve no instructional purpose (teachers cannot even see the questions and detailed breakdowns of which their students got right and wrong and so cannot use them to inform instruction) but do negatively affect instruction by a) leading to narrowing and distortion of pedagogy and curricula (for example to teaching of the InstaWriting required by the test rather than to the teaching of writing) and by b) imposing an extrinsic punishment and reward mechanism that is known to be highly DEMOTIVATING for cognitive tasks. The second of these runs counter to our prime directive as teachers, which is to nurture intrinsic motivation–to build self-motivated, independent, life-long learners.
Because these are criterion-referenced tests, the determination of cut scores for them is completely arbitrary and subject to manipulation for political rather than educational purposes.
These tests use many so-called “objective” question formats that are inappropriate, generally, for testing anything more sophisticated than simple factual recall, and because these questions formats are pushed into a kind of service for which they are unsuitable, generally, the questions tend to be convoluted and the results generated highly suspect.
The tests are invariant, but appropriate instruction should not be, for students are not widgets to be identically milled, and testing should, of course, be based on instruction.
LikeLike
“We pass through this world but once. Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even to hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within.”
― Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man
LikeLike
Mike Barrett: a most apt quotation on this thread.
On the title page of THE MISMEASURE OF MAN:
“If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” [Charles Darwin]
To translate into current terms, very briefly: the misery—children vomiting and beaten down by the hazing ritual known as high-stakes standardized testing; the institution—the education establishment lead by the self-proclaimed leaders of the “new civil rights movement of our time.”
😎
LikeLike
No doubt what Gould says quite true. And the sorting and separating that these tests do, do just that-deny opportunity to some while insisting that the student is the one at fault.
From my summary of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error”:
“So what does a test measure in our world?” [I contend it measures nothing as a test is not a measuring device but an assessment device]
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike
Duane, you know that I love you as a brother,but respectfully, at this point, every person who visits this blog has seen this same post from Wilson about a thousand times. Perhaps a link to it would suffice.
LikeLike
Great quotation, Mike!
LikeLike
did you see the piece in the huffington post about common core where they used a quote by you at the end?
LikeLike
Monica, I did not see that piece on Huffington Post, but I saw this on Twitter:
Louis C.K. (@louisck)
5/4/14, 4:58 PM
this caring, thoughtful and qualified person @DianeRavitch wrote this about CCSS dianeravitch.net/2014/05/02/my-… listen to her. Not me.
Diane
LikeLike
From the article: “Reliability and standardization can be at odds with the third key problem in psychometrics: validity.”
Just as CCSS and standardized tests are two sides of the same pyrrhic coin so too are reliability and validity. Considering that Wilson has proven the complete INVALIDITY of educational standards and standardized testing we must conclude that they are UNRELIABLE also.
To understand why this is so read his short (15 or so pages) essay review of the psychometrician’s bible “Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing” (2002) in “A Little Less Than Valid: An Essay Review” found at: http://www.edrev.info/essays/v10n5.pdf
LikeLike
As is my wont, I will piggy back off Señor Swacker’s excellent recommendation.
😉
But, but, but, say the Management By The Numbers crowd, with what would you replace the perfection and infallibility of the scores generated by standardized tests?
😱
Just remember that such comments emanate from RheeWorld, where Rheeality Distortion Fields distort and mangle the thinking of even the grittiest “thought leaders.”
Here on Planet Reality we take a more, well, realistic and balanced view:
[start quote]
All methods of evaluating people have their defects—and grave defects they are. But let us not therefore allow one particular method to play the usurper. Let us not seek to replace informed judgment, with all its frailty, by some inexpensive statistical substitute. Let us keep open many diverse and non-competing channels towards recognition. For high ability is where we find it. It is individual and must be recognized for what it is, not rejected out of hand simply because it does not happen to conform to criteria established by statistical technicians. In seeking high ability, let us shun overdependence on tests that are blind to dedication and creativity, and biased against depth and subtlety. For that way lies testolatry.
[end quote]
{Banesh Hoffman, THE TYRANNY OF TESTING (2003 edition of the 1964 edition of the 1962 original, final pages, 216-217)}
😎
LikeLike
“Bob Shepherd
May 8, 2014 at 9:27 am
It seems pretty obvious that this is just spin.”
Who knows? Reading the glowing press on the national testing test run and comparing that with the rhetoric of the last decade and a half, I’m confused.
I was told repeatedly that US public school were these failing factories of mediocrity since the advent of the political movement that is ed reform. Magically, somehow, these same public schools seamlessly and perfectly conducted a huge national experiment.
Goodness. The high standards are working already! Public schools must be fashionable again! I can’t keep up!
LikeLike
Chiara Duggan: I believe your reactions are wholly justified.
Such bewilderingly mixed messages are perfectly consonant with the assertion that self-styled “education reform” is a business plan—although not necessarily one that employs best practices. Stay on message, brand and rebrand, be relentless in pushing your eduproducts, and disparage by any means necessary those of the competition [aka public schools].
Trying to make sense of it as an education model—that’s where reason, logic, decency and consistency will fail, because when those criteria are applied to self-styled “education reform” their score is ZERO. NADA. NIL. And if they prefer letter grades: below F.
But if it’s clarity you want, then consider the following: when it comes to convincing the “leaders of the new civil rights movement” of our time that they should provide the same quality education to OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN that they ensure for THEIR OWN CHILDREN—
“I reject that mind-set.” [Michelle Rhee]
What have we come to, when the above quote actually makes some sense?
😎
LikeLike
I can’t stand it 🙂
I think it’s deeply cynical to bash public schools to SELL the Common Core than do this phony switcheroo the moment the tests are in place, with all this cooing about what a “GREAT!” job they’re doing with the tests.
Give me a break. Are these the same public schools that suck so much? How are they doing such a bang-up job on this incredibly complex national testing experiment? Which is it? Do we trust them to do their work or not?
LikeLike
“[D]eeply cynical”? You bet.
But from another angle: when “[w]inning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” [Vince Lombardi], what moral imperative or ethical guideline will stop the self-styled “education reformers” from sucker punching everyone they can?
And yet another angle. Perhaps you too have noticed that since the announcement of the Florida VAMania being applied with toxic results to teachers who are rated on the scores of students they haven’t taught—
Not one pro-charter/voucher/privatization commenter has piped up on this blog to voice his/her outrage at such a deeply unfair and dishonest practice.
I am reminded of the Sherlock Holmes case where “the dog that didn’t bark” was the essential clue that broke open the case.
The silence of the sucker punchers on Florida VAM tells us everything we need to know about their moral and ethical concerns.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
Darlene,
If you get this, go to subscriptions at the bottom of your email and click on the notice to manage subscriptions or simply click on the unsubscribe button.
LikeLike
“schools have tested students throughout history” – In the West I don’t believe there was much use of written exams before about 1800. The use of written exams thereafter mostly reflects Chinese influence. The use of written exams in China is documented as early as 124 BC.
IQ is the best supported and most solidly established part of psychology. IQ scores are the best predictors of academic achievement and economic success. The IQ scores of individuals after early childhood are generally fairly stable. Studies of identical twins show IQ to be among the most inheritable of human traits.
The differences between the average IQ scores of different racial and ethnic groups are very stable both over time and between different areas of the global. IQ is highly correlated with relative social and economic status and with the intellectual and cultural achievements of different ethnic and racial groups.
For example the Han Chinese who have an average IQ around 105 have generally had over the last 4,000 years the most advanced or close to the most advanced culture in the world. The Japanese who have an average IQ of about 108 have consistently been among the most prosperous countries in the world going way back. The general level of economic well-being in Western Europe did not exceed the level in Japan until about 1800.
On the other hand Sub-Saharan Africa where IQ tests give results of 60-80 has lagged behind the rest of the world since the Mousterian Era 50,000 years ago.
Nothing in the known history of humanity over the last 50,000 years suggests that different racial and ethnic groups have the same average level of intelligence.
Tests of the IQ of Austrailian aborigines give resulrs in the 60’s. To believe that Han Chinese and Austrailian aborigines have the same average level of intelligence requires one to totally ignore every shred of empirical evidence and the entire historical record.
LikeLike
Please give your referernces, names of tests, when they were created. Tell us which tests were used where, and who did the translations, from which languages to which. Tell us how all these tests were made comparable. Your narrative is not credible.
LikeLike
If someone were to say that Austrailian aborigines are just as intelligent as Han Chinese it would be like someone saying that the Moon is just as hot as the Sun. I would have to conclude that someone who said that was using the word “hot” in a sense utterly devoid of any empitical content. It’s the same with someone who would say that Austrailian aborigines are just as intelligent as Han Chinese.
LikeLike
Jim, I am going to try, once more, to penetrate that thick skull of yours. The brain is a vast society of interacting mechanisms–billions of them–for specific functions. But it’s even more complicated than that. The parts perform the equivalent of subroutines for many higher-order, nested mechanisms at many, many design levels. And any of these could quite sensibly be referred to as an “intelligence,” if one defined intelligence as activity tending to the benefit of an organism. Furthermore, that brain cannot be considered in isolation. A person plus a cultural structure providing particular affordances is more intelligent in whatever ways those affordances allow, and groups of people, even more so. Add cultural transmission to this. Add embodied intelligences. Add epigenetic influences. Each of these adds an exponent to the exponent in any conceivable calculation of the number of distinct “intelligences.” All this is very, very clearly explained in Marvin Minsky’s The Society of Mind and The Emotion Machine. There is no one general intelligence factor. There are not seven or eight “multiple intelligences.” There are trillions and trillions actually existing and potentially existing. And these tests that you are referring to are, in comparison, the crudest of instruments. Using them is like trying to measure the width of synaptic junctions with a yardstick or to measure the speed of locomotion of a fly based on the distance to which it can BURROW in a unit time. I should be a big fan of these tests. I have an IQ of 180 as measured by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That is, as I suppose you know, a breathtakingly high score. But I am bright enough to understand just how crude these instruments are. Again, go read Jablonka on this.
LikeLike
Bob – Thinking about the high degree of complexity of the brain as you describe it note how extraordinarily improbable it would be that different human groups with very different evolutionary histories would evolve to have the exact same level of cognitive abilities. Note that there is a high degree of randomness in evolution. Mutations are random events which are then subject to the selective forces of the many different environments in which different human groups have lived. Even if a mutation is advantageous in a particular environment there is a substantial chance that it will disapear by pure chance shortly after it appears.
Homo sapiens have lived in Austrailia for some 40,000 years. They seem to have been largely genetically isolated from the rest of humanity since entering Austrailia although there is some genetic evidence of additional emigration from Southern Indian after the original settlement. Because their population has always been small evolutionary change has been slow. The larger a population is the more chances of mutations occurring which if advantageous can spread through the whole population. Small populations such as are found on islands or subcontinents like Austrailia generally do not evolve as rapidily as larger populations.
Bob, complex natural processes like evolution do not produce simple patterns like equality. They produce complex messes. The genetic evidence indicates that a large portion of the human genome has been under strong selection in the recent past. At least 14% of the human genome shows signs of strong recent selection. In addition there has been substantial introgression into the human genome from at least two non-sapient species and evidence for possibly others as well. One estimate of non-sapient genetic introgression into Melanesians is 7.4%! In comparison to that amount the differences between domestic dogs and wolfs are utterly trivial.
What is the liklihood of a small population of Austrailian aborigines evolving in exact parellel to say populations in Eurasia? It would be akin to all the molecules in the room I am sitting in having at a particular time the exact identical speed.
LikeLike
Bob – You speak of “trillions and trillions” of factors of intelligence. For simplicity let’s say there one trillion. So you believe that Austrailian aborigines and Han Chinese would have exactly the same level of ability on each of these one trillion factors of intelligence? Bob,i that’s gaga!
There is in fact evidence that Austrailian aborigines have much better spatial location abilities than white Austrailians. In one study done some years ago children at a daycare center were asked to point in the direction of their home. Most white children said they had no idea and of those who did point the direction in which they pointed had zero correlation with the true direction to their homes. Almost all the aboriginal children pointed to their homes and the directions in which they pointed wre highly correlated with the true direction. Also studies of Australian aborigines have shown that they have strong visual memories.
Of course good spatial location abilities and a good visual memory are highly useful to nomadic hunter-gatherers wandering about in a largly isotropic environment with no artificial landmarks.
Bob, the more complex the structure of human intelligence is the more improbable it becomes that all racial/ethnic are cognitively identical.
LikeLike
Jim, I never made the claim that different people were cognitively identical, which would be, of course, absurd, so I’m not sure why you would say that. But in general, for many, many traits,of course, there is more variation within so-called racial groups (the notion of “race” has almost no scientific merit) than there is across groups. And variation due to epigenetic causes is, of course, enormous, and we are only now beginning to learn why this is so. The existence of epigenetic mechanisms invalidates, of course, the procedures (twin studies) used to come up with a high heritability figure for the narrowly conceived “general intelligence factor. Our genetic endowment is not fixed. To an extent that is as yet unknown, but that we are just beginning to puzzle out, we inherit a lot of complexly interacting genetic switches that respond to environmental conditions in order to determine phenotype. Evolution designed such mechanisms as a means by which organisms can be adapted quite readily and dramatically to new challenges, and this provides an explanation, of course, for the suddenness of those punctuations that give the theory of punctuated equilibria its name. But I tire of this. Really, I have better things to do.
LikeLike
Jim, has it never occurred to you that differing peoples could have differing intelligences and be clueless about those of the Other, so clueless, in fact, that they wouldn’t even know what they are, much less how to measure them?
You would not think that you would measure, say, distance by the same means that you would use for measuring, say, temperature. Why would you make so elementary a blunder in reasoning in this regard? The hubris of the overapplication of this simple-minded measurement is just appalling. And inexcusable because of the racist conclusions drawn by such facile means.
I am reminded of a most likely apocryphal story told about George Lyman Kittredge, the great Harvard Shakespeare scholar. Kittredge never got a Ph.D., and the story goes that once a professor at some other university said, “But why don’t you just sit for our exams? You would breeze right through them!”
And Kittredge answered, “Which of You is going to examine ME?”
Well, that !Kung tribesman would have the same right to scoff at you and your ridiculous test, so narrowly and provincially conceived.
That one ought to be pretty obvious. Until you have survived and thrived as well as the !Kung do in their environment and their culture, or somewhere else equally foreign to your experience, don’t talk to me of this crap.
And, of course, in almost any person, the distance between his or her capacity for intelligent activity and the realization of that potential is far, far greater than is the distance in ability with regard to particular tasks demonstrated by the brightest and the dumbest among us.
Really, I’m done. Go back to your mimeograph machine.
LikeLike
Bob – The issue we are discussing is not whether different individuals are cognitively equal but whether different racial/ethnic groups are cognitively equal. The assertion that Han Chinese and Australian aborigines are cognitively equivalent populations belongs to “Credo quia absurdum” thinking.
The Bushmen populations once existed over a much larger area. They have retreated in the face of the Bantu advance to marginal areas like the Kalahari desert. No doubt the Bushmen are excellent hunter-gatherers but they cannot compete with the Bantu. The retreat of the Bushman into places like the Kalahari desert is their final stand in the face of extinction.
LikeLike
Bob – If “differing people” have “differing intelligences” then obviously they are not cognitively equivalent. You seem to be agreeing with me that “differing people” such as the Bushmen have “differing intelligences” – so the Bushmen are not cognitively equivalent to the Bantu nor are Austrlian aborigines cognitively equivalent to the Han Chinese.
The Australian aborigines have a cognitive profile that no doubt is very well adapted to life as nomadic hunter-gatherers. The Han Chinese are very well adapted to life in a complex heirarchial civilization. All the available evidence indicates that Australian aborigines are very poorly adapted to life in a modern civilization.
LikeLike
Jim, are you paid by some Ed Deformer group to come onto Diane’s blog and spew long-discredited, psuedoscientific, racist nonsense, or to do this a part of your own Aryan nation skinhead Bund activities?
At any rate, none of this is amusing anymore. For a while, one could simply say, “OK, there’s this racist wacko with a fifth-grader’s command of science who shows up from time to time on Diane’s page. What a world!” But this stuff has long since gone past amusing. Go back to mimeographing copies of Rasse und Seele and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in your basement or whatever it is that you do with your spare time.
LikeLike
cx: pseudoscientific, of course
LikeLike
Bob – Personal vituperation is not a substitute for logical argument.
LikeLike
Jim, I tried that. I gave you reference after reference. I patiently explained. And the racist crap kept flowing. You say that you are of German ancestry. You are very fortunate that you are not living in Germany today, for there, you would be arrested for hate speech. I do not support suppression of speech, even very, very stupid speech, and I do not countenance racism, ever, and especially not when it dresses its self up in cartoonish “science.”
LikeLike
http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2012/08/cartoons-climb-that-tree.html#.U2vaRSiDBlw
LikeLike
Bob,
Just a guess, but perhaps someone at some point is Jim’s life told him he had a high IQ. Maybe he has clung to this bit of information and the supposed importance of IQ itself because it comforts, affirms or validates him in some way.
I can see no other reason for anyone to continue to harp on IQ at all (hotly debated), let alone harp on race and IQ (beyond discredited, of course).
Either that or he is simply a raging racist.
Either way, perhaps this is a troll we should just avoid engaging, since no amount of requests for references from him or offers of information from us seems to have any impact.
As KTA says, just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Jim,
Bob is too much of a gentleman to send you the following wish. Im’m not proud to admit that I’m not. Hopefully this semi-cryptic message clears the owner’s censorship rules. If not. I apologize Diane.
Go. If you see Kay yourself; just don’t tell her what you did.
You are a purely disgusting animal.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, Ang, but I lose patience with this stuff very quickly because I consider it so dangerous.
Here’s why I do: When people couch their racism in seemingly scientific terms, this fools gullible, ignorant people who don’t know enough science to dismiss it, and so the racism metastasizes.
Years ago, I hobnobbed with privileged, wealthy people in Boston, for a time, though I was never anything like a member of that set, and I was stunned to find that many of these people held views that could have belonged to Galton or Goebbels, thought of The Bell Curve as science, and considered that book some sort of touchstone validating their extremely reactionary and callous worldviews. These were not scientific people, of course–they were business people and political people, for the most part–but they had latched onto crap of precisely the kind that Jim spews here as confirmation for racist positions they already held, privately, of course, within their generally closed social circle.
LikeLike
Jim: Your insinuation that one ethnic group is intrinsically superior to another is straight out of the Nazi and eugenics movements. Stop. It’s disgusting.
LikeLike
Yes, Bob.
There is nothing funny here.
And, yes. If not countered, this sort of thing takes hold. I feel you, my friend.
However…
The way to dispatch a troll is to IGNORE.
Trolls have an MO. Incendiary to grab attention. Get called out, many busy threads, big drama. Lots of attention. Some think it funny (not generally those actually being insulted by the nut, but I digress).
If called out enough or shunned, the troll will lay low. Then try incendiary again. If no go, will do a post or 2 to ingratiate. Gaining some acceptance, troop will then get slightly more inflammatory. The newbies and truly generous of spirit (teachers) will try to help, steer, refocus, etc. but to no avail. Then back at it, full on nonsense.
Bob, I love and respect your genuineness.
Ignore this creep.
LikeLike
Bob,
PS
RE: “many of these people held views that could have belonged to Galton or Goebbels, thought of The Bell Curve as science, and considered that book some sort of touchstone validating their extremely reactionary and callous world views….”
I have had similar experiences, my friend.
And these experiences were years ago, and recent.
And horrifying.
And oh so funny, or course.
#whyiteach
LikeLike
This stuff, Ang, reminds me of my favorite protest sign, ever, which read “I can’t believe that I’m still protesting this $#&*$&*$#&*!!.”
Well, I can’t believe I am still arguing this $&#*&$#*&!!. Let’s do the time warp again.
LikeLike
Wow, Jim hit the jackpot on this thread. It’s almost hard not to be happy for him. Way to go, Jim, you worked hard and you earned this!
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
I agree that this jackpot was well deserved. But I don’t think it at all funny, FLERP.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I personally have a difficult time finding the middle ground between finding things funny and sliding into a profound depression. As long as I’m not asleep at the wheel, I’ll always steer toward funny
LikeLike
Or rather:
LikeLike
Hilarious, FLERP! BTW, I fell off my chair laughing at your “timing” comment above.
LikeLike
Thanks for the post! My forthcoming book, The Test (PublicAffairs, 2015) is about the past, present and future of testing in public schools. I was startled to learn about the eugenicist and racist intellectual history of intelligence testing and intelligence theory, and the book tries to get to the bottom of it as best as I can–it’s certainly explosive stuff.
LikeLike