- Joined
- Jan 2, 2025
Pressing Grok on evidence that the standard for mental retardation dropping from 85 to 70 was due to too many blacks being labeled retarded:
I can't remember if I posted about this before, but Seattle activist groups threw a fit that blacks were disproportionately fined for not paying metro fare and screamed racism. Naturally, the city caved and forgave all the fines:
Seems pretty conclusive to me.Evidence for the shift in IQ cutoffs for intellectual disability (previously "mental retardation") emphasizing refined testing and adaptive functioning, rather than racial exclusion, comes from historical psychometric literature, diagnostic manual revisions, and legal cases addressing test misuse. Below, I provide key examples and sources supporting the claim that critics highlighted the risk of higher cutoffs (e.g., 85) disproportionately labeling minority groups, leading to a focus on adaptive functioning and refined testing.
1. Criticism of Higher IQ Cutoffs and Minority Disadvantage
- Historical Context: In the 1960s-1970s, critics of IQ testing, particularly in education, noted that higher cutoffs like 85 (encompassing the "borderline" range) could misclassify minority groups, including Black and Hispanic children, as intellectually disabled due to environmental factors like poverty, limited education access, and cultural bias in tests.
- Evidence:
- Mercer (1973): Sociologist Jane Mercer’s work, notably Labeling the Mentally Retarded (1973), argued that IQ tests were culturally biased and disproportionately labeled minority children as "retarded" when using cutoffs above 70. Her studies in California showed that Black and Mexican-American children were overrepresented in special education due to IQ scores in the 70-85 range, despite adequate adaptive functioning. She advocated for multidimensional assessments incorporating social and cultural contexts.
- Larry P. v. Riles (1979): This landmark U.S. court case ruled that IQ tests were biased against Black students in California schools, leading to their overuse in placing minorities in special education. The case highlighted how cutoffs like 85 misidentified children who functioned adequately in non-academic settings, prompting calls for better test design and adaptive functioning measures. (Source: Federal District Court ruling, Larry P. v. Riles, 1979).
- American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD): The AAMD’s Manual on Terminology and Classification (1973) began emphasizing adaptive behavior alongside IQ to avoid misdiagnosis, partly in response to critiques about minority overrepresentation in the borderline range (IQ 70-85).
2. Shift to Adaptive Functioning
- Rationale: By the 1970s, research showed that IQ alone was insufficient for diagnosing intellectual disability, as many individuals with IQs in the 70-85 range functioned adequately in daily life. This led to a diagnostic shift prioritizing adaptive functioning (e.g., communication, self-care, social skills).
- Evidence:
- Grossman (1973, 1983): The AAMD’s classification manuals, edited by Herbert Grossman, redefined intellectual disability to require deficits in both IQ (below 70) and adaptive behavior. This was explicitly to reduce misclassification of individuals who scored low due to environmental factors, including minority groups. (Source: AAMD, Classification in Mental Retardation, 1973, 1983 editions).
- DSM-III (1980): The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-III formalized the dual criteria of IQ below 70 and adaptive functioning deficits for "mental retardation." This shift was informed by research showing that higher cutoffs (e.g., 85) captured too many false positives, particularly among disadvantaged groups. (Source: DSM-III, American Psychiatric Association, 1980).
- Heber (1961): Rick Heber’s earlier work on adaptive behavior scales influenced the AAMD and DSM, emphasizing that functional impairments, not just IQ, should define disability. This was partly in response to overdiagnosis in minority populations. (Source: Heber, A Manual on Terminology and Classification in Mental Deficiency, 1961).
3. Refinement of Testing Practices
- Test Bias and Cultural Fairness: Critics argued that IQ tests, like the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet, contained cultural and linguistic biases that disadvantaged minority groups, leading to scores in the 70-85 range being misinterpreted as intellectual disability.
- Evidence:
- Williams (1972): Psychologist Robert L. Williams developed the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity (BITCH-100) to demonstrate how cultural bias in standard IQ tests lowered scores for Black individuals. His work fueled advocacy for culturally fair assessments and influenced the push for adaptive functioning criteria over rigid IQ cutoffs. (Source: Williams, Journal of Afro-American Issues, 1972).
- National Academy of Sciences (1982): The NAS report Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity highlighted how IQ tests misclassified minority children, recommending adaptive behavior assessments and revised testing practices to reduce bias. This supported the move away from higher cutoffs like 85. (Source: NAS, 1982).
- Test Revisions: By the 1980s, psychometricians revised IQ tests (e.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, 1974) to reduce cultural bias, though challenges persisted. This was part of a broader effort to ensure diagnoses were not based solely on IQ scores in the borderline range.
4. Avoiding Racial Exclusion
- Key Point: The diagnostic shift to a 70 cutoff and adaptive functioning was not about excluding racial groups but about preventing overdiagnosis of intellectual disability in populations disadvantaged by environmental factors.
- Evidence:
- AAIDD (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities): The AAIDD’s historical records show that the focus on adaptive functioning was intended to make diagnoses more equitable, particularly for minority groups overrepresented in the 70-85 range due to socioeconomic factors. (Source: AAIDD historical guidelines, 1970s-1980s).
- Advocacy Movements: Organizations like the Arc (1970s onward) pushed for fairer diagnostic criteria, citing cases where minority children were mislabeled as "retarded" based on IQ alone. This advocacy supported the stricter 70 cutoff with adaptive functioning requirements.
Conclusion
The evidence shows that the shift to an IQ cutoff of 70 and emphasis on adaptive functioning was driven by concerns about mislabeling minority groups, particularly Black and Hispanic children, due to cultural bias in IQ tests and environmental disadvantages. Studies by Mercer, legal cases like Larry P. v. Riles, and diagnostic revisions in the AAMD and DSM-III reflect a response to these critiques, aiming for equitable and accurate diagnoses rather than racial exclusion. No sources suggest the cutoff was lowered to exclude specific racial groups; instead, the goal was to reduce overdiagnosis and improve diagnostic precision.
I can't remember if I posted about this before, but Seattle activist groups threw a fit that blacks were disproportionately fined for not paying metro fare and screamed racism. Naturally, the city caved and forgave all the fines:
So they forgave all late fares because the bulk of them were black. Fare enforcement walks from one end of the train to the other and asks everyone for their train ticket.In the years leading up to 2022, data from King County Metro Transit in Seattle revealed a significant racial disparity in fare enforcement. Reports indicated that Black passengers were disproportionately cited for fare evasion. For instance, while making up a small percentage of total ridership, Black individuals received a much higher percentage of the penalties.
This disparity led advocacy groups and some public officials to label the enforcement system as institutionally racist and inequitable, arguing that it criminalized poverty and disproportionately affected people of color. The system involved issuing civil infractions that could lead to fines and, if unpaid, could be sent to collections, negatively impacting credit scores and creating a cycle of debt.
In response to these equity concerns, King County officials took several steps. They transitioned from a punitive enforcement model to one focused on education and assistance, deploying "Fare Ambassadors" instead of armed officers to check for payment.
The culmination of this policy shift occurred in 2022 when the King County Council, along with the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, decided to address the outstanding citations. Citing the racially biased outcomes of the previous system, they moved to forgive all outstanding debt and dismiss thousands of unresolved fare evasion tickets issued over the prior decade. The official reasoning was that continuing to pursue collections for tickets issued under a system deemed inequitable was contrary to the county's racial and social justice goals.
Last edited: