Quote:The gap in earnings doesn't matter, access to above poverty enployment DOES matter, as the basis for ending poverty-level welfare dependency and eliminating the gap (as defined in government stats).
this is the sociologists fallacy yet again, its origin dates back a long time
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2018/12/sociologists-fallacy-origins-of-the-term/ Quote:The Tulkin article referred to by Dr. Alfert is one of the 43 published studies of Negro-white IQ differences which attempted to control for socioeconomic status (SES) and/or other environmental factors. In all but three of these studies, the white mean was higher than the Negro within SES groups; the remaining mean difference, over all studies, with SES “controlled,” was 11 IQ points (Shuey, 1966). Tulkin statistically “controlled” both for SES and a number of more subtle family variables. He concluded: “When family differences were also statistically con- trolled, there were no significant racial differences on test scores in the upper socioeconomic group, although differences remained significant in the lower socioeconomic group. ”
But the statistical matching of racial groups on SES and other environmental factors is an invalid method in any of these studies, since it presumes that SES, etc., are entirely causal variables. Since there is substantial evidence that there are genetic as well as environmental differences between SES groups (within races), a matching procedure (statistical or actual) results in some degree of matching on the genetic as well as the environmental factors involved in mental development. Thus the independent and dependent variables in these experiments are hopelessly confounded. Paul Meehl has written cogently on this “sociologists’ fallacy”:
"While every sophomore learns that a statistical correlation does not inform us as to the nature of the causality at work (although, except for sampling errors, it does presumably show some kind of causal relation latent to the covariation observed), there has arisen a widespread misconception that we can somehow, in advance, sort nuisance-variables into a class which occurs only at the input side. This is, of course, almost never the case. The usual tendency, found widely among sociologists and quite frequently among psychologists (particularly among those of strong environmentalist persuasion) is to assume sub silentio that there is a set of demographic-type variables, such as social class, domicile, education, and the like, that always operate as nuisance variables to obscure true relationships, and that function primarily as exclusively on the input side from the standpoint of causal analysis. This automatic assumption is often quite unjustified. Example: We study the relationship between some biological or social input variable, such as ethnic or religious background, upon a psychological output variable, such as IQ or achievement. We find that Protestants differ from Catholics or that Whites differ from Blacks. But we find further that the ethnic or religious groups differ in socio-economic class. We conclude, as an immediate inference and almost as a matter of course, that we have to ‘control’ for the socio-economic class variable, in order to find out what is the ‘true’ relationship between the ethnic or religious variable and the psychological output variable. But of course no such immediate inference is defensible, since on certain alternative hypotheses, such as a heavily genetic view of the determiners of social class, the result of such a ‘control’ is to bring about a spurious reduction of unknown magnitude in what is actually a valid difference (Meehl, 1970)"
"above poverty employment" will not eliminate the gap if somehow you could get every single abo into "above poverty employment" (lmao), if there are cognitive differences between abos and white people and those cognitive differences are partially or entirely genetic
again we are getting back to what i was talking about before on the prior page, which you hand waved - what if there were differences in cognitive ability between aboriginals and white people in australia, and those differences were at least 1% genetic? how can you eliminate the gap in earnings etc by somehow 'eliminating' poverty when it isnt actually poverty that causes those behavioural differences in that instance (assume that its true)? poverty would merely CO-INCIDE with inherent cognitive differences, because stupid people generally dont earn as much as smarter people
hence the sociologist's fallacy - the equation of an environmental condition (in this instance, 'poverty') with a coinciding phenotype, and immediately assuming causation between the two, when the relationship could be mediated by a deeper variable, in this instance, genotypic differences
& jensen wasnt necessarily correct in that very old article, in that controlling for SES often doesnt make test score differences between groups go away at all in the american context
resource here:
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/25/no-the-sat-doesnt-just-measure-inc...not much as changed since, including your chitty theories
Forum
Pages: 
