IQ and the collective consciousness

Jewish Atheist has been on a roll when it comes to giving me stuff to blog about. Here is his recent noteworthy comment:

By that definition of hypocrisy, almost everyone on earth is a hypocrite. Consider the overwhelming majority of Americans who hold absurdly stupid views about religion. Denial is a very powerful thing and it afflicts the smart as well as the dumb. As for education, most people simply do not know about the importance of IQ, not necessarily out of denial, but because it's a relatively young field that hasn't yet made significant inroads into the collective consciousness.

For example, it never occurred to me personally that there could be such a wide gulf between average IQs among races. When The Bell Curve came out, I assumed it was a crock without reading it because it was so roundly dismissed by almost everyone. I can't go investigate every maverick's thesis or I'd be able to do nothing with my life but study cold fusion, alternative causes to AIDS, cars that run on water, thinking cures to cancer, bizarre theories about Jesus's descendants, etc.

It was only through these blogs that I started to do research to defend my beliefs about IQ and race when I realized that they were not true. (It was specifically the APA's agreement that the correlation exists and matters that convinced me. I'd had no idea.)

So my point is that you shouldn't assume people know the things you do, especially when said thing is disbelieved by a majority of the population including most of the elite. Sometimes, we really just don't know.

(I'm pretty impressed that Jewish Atheist can write such a long comment without any apparent spelling or grammatical errors. Wow!)

Jewish Atheist is correct when he writes that the importance of IQ is not part of the "collective consciousness," although he is incorrect about the reason. He says that IQ is a young field. Actually, the study of IQ goes back more than a hundred years, making it an older field than scientific endeavors we take for granted such as nuclear power, penicillin, or space travel.

A hundred years ago, if you had asked an educated person if some people were born smarter than others, he would have said, "of course." And you if you had asked him if blacks were typically not as smart as whites, he would have also said, "of course." So what has happened is that the fact of differences in intelligence has been purged from the public consciousness. If something which is true is somehow eradicated from the public consciousness, it can only happen by a deliberate conspiracy.

If you would ask someone today why an educated person from a hundred years ago would have these politically incorrect thoughts about intelligence, the typical response would be, "Back then we were scientifically ignorant. But today we know the truth." This is somewhat ironic because there is no body of research disproving the original theory. The more the issue is studied, the more evidence there is that the person from a hundred years ago had it right.

Whether a person is amenable to even contemplating the truth about intelligence has a lot to do with his political persuasion. Conservatives are more likely to accept this as true. But some conservatives, such as George W. Bush, have completely bought into the standard liberal argument that there are no racial differences in intelligence. His No Child Left Behind program would be very good public policy if the politically correct view of racial differences were true.

The people most amenable to understanding the truth about intelligence are the real racists such as the White Power people, the Skinheads, the Neo-Nazis, etc. These guys already hate blacks, so any evidence that blacks are mentally inferior to whites is taken up not with skepticism but rather with glee. This creates the unfortunate situation where these white trash types are the only ones who are publicly stating the truth. This situation simultaneously gives these groups more power because they are the only groups who are publicly proclaiming this hidden truth, and it also tends to taint the whole field of study making it even less likely that regular non-racist people will believe it.

But I have to wonder about what the hard core leftists believe. As I said before, I find it hard to fathom that something which is true and which everyone took for granted was somehow erased from the collective consciousness. This implies the work of a leftist conspiracy. The same conspiracy which is in operation today and which actively seeks to suppress any politically correct talk of differences in intelligence. If the leftists truly believed that there were no differences in intelligence, they would actively support scientific study in this area in order to prove they are right. Instead, they vehemently try to suppress any such study.

But returning to Jewish Atheist's comment, he is correct that the typical moderate liberal, the type who lives in Manhattan, votes Democratic, and makes a lot of money, has bought into the notion that the races are equal and therefore he believes it's possible to have a public school system which includes minority students but which he could also send his own children to. He probably hasn't given much thought to the issue and it's easy for him to believe what he's supposed to believe. But it still doesn't make him less of a hypocrite for preaching the benefits of "diversity" yet making sure his own kids attend a private schools that's predominately white (with just enough token minorities to assuage his guilt).

Comments

[Jason Malloy]

The typical white liberal, like the typical white conservative, does not, in fact, believe in equality, as evidenced by the white schools they pay much additional money to put their children in, and the white neighborhoods they move their families to.

Similarly conservatives will easily deny evolution while simultaneously following the their medication regimens to avoid antibiotic resistance.

The truth of abstract theories don't interest the average person, they're too busy with their lives to waste endless hours studying useless information. What people are interested in is status. And certain ideas bring more status.

Historical events can shift the status of ideas. Historical losers bring down the ideas that characterize them.

The Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement and WWII all helped foster the low status of racial and genetic ideas in the US.

(The fall of Communism on the other end of the spectrum should have provided a major corrective to this trend, but it didn't.)

Science will, of course, thoroughly refute all equalitarian dogmas soon enough. But the ideas will still be low status so expect slow change and endless sophistry, non sequiturs, and logic chopping in the public conversation, and glacial political evolution.

[Jason Malloy]

". . . higher-educated whites, regardless of their income, are more likely than less-educated whites to judge a school’s quality and base their school choice on its racial composition . . .

“I do believe that white people are being sincere when they claim that racial inequality is not a good thing and that they’d like to see it eliminated,” says Emerson. “However, they are caught in a social system in which their liberal attitudes about race aren’t reflected in their behavior.”"

http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/fall/sallyport/segregation.html

[APH]

Good post. Without the anonymity of the internet, my interest in race+IQ issues would be a "personal one" - confined to reading books, but never really discussing them with anyone - It's all but impossible to have a discussion about race+IQ because the public zeitgeist does not allow for truth-seeking dialog. Moreover, even remotely mentioning a race-sensitive issue in a public forum involves endlessly "qualifying" your statements, lest you appear like you are stereotyping an entire race. If I don't preface a factual statement (let's say low test scores for blacks) with an acknowledgment that some blacks perform well, I immediately sense the "racial" red card has been thrown on the field. It's like instead of saying "San Diego has nice weather" one must first point out that San Diego does indeed have bad weather on occasion and, oh, perhaps the definition of nice weather is subjective.

I don't want anything to do with the racists. But their very presence in the debate shames anyone who might "agree" with them; that differences in IQ between races is real. Anyone who wants to talk about this kind of thing in a public forum (imagine a guest on a television program pitted against another guest) will have to constantly disassociate themselves from the racists. It's not fair and it's no way to debate, but even the fear of guilt by association scares most away.

On a related note, to illustrate just sensitive this issue is - A while back I read an insightful book by Richard (I think?) Rothstein called "Race and Class" - essentially Rothstein's analysis and explanation for racial inequalities amongst American students. In the first couple of pages, he says that since IQ cannot be used as a basis for affecting public policy, it won't be seriously addressed in his book, and it wasn't. Does that sound like a scholarly way to pursue truth? - writing a book about a problem and suggesting new policy without looking at what might be the biggest piece of the puzzle? BTW, it was still an excellent book save for that very big omission.

Al Gore doesn't have his priorities in order. Global warming is a lot less important and far more "convenient" than this issue. If America is to remain globally competitive and have any hope of curtailing the growing class polarization, we need to be serious and get this issue out of the hands of extremists. I'm not optimistic.

[David Alexander]

If America is to remain globally competitive and have any hope of curtailing the growing class polarization, we need to be serious and get this issue out of the hands of extremists. I'm not optimistic.

Even if we were to point out the low IQ of certain races, it wouldn't change that much in terms of class polarization because the low IQ prohibits these people from attaining employment that pays good middle class wages. We destroyed our low-IQ, heavily unionized industry in exchange for cheap imported products from overseas, and now we're stuck with low IQ members of all races who will be stuck in low wage work, possibly become frustrated at the lack of progress in their lives and turn to crime. Handing out welfare isn't a solution, and given the resentment with Affirmative Action, handing out middle class wage-paying jobs to low IQ people of all races in a de facto lottery will only create more animosity from the middle class.

[Alex]

David Alexander brings up a good point, and one that is rarely discussed by the "liberal racial realists".

What would the "Bell Curve" info change? About the only thing I can think of is the USA's immigration policy...and that is it.

Low IQ people of all races are pretty much screwed. Even if we stop all low-skilled immigration, we still will have to come to grips with the fact that a lot of the relatively high-paying jobs that used to exist in the factories are now gone (a.k.a. outsourced). What is not outsourced will eventually be automated.

Again, pretending that everything will be ok is a little soft-headed. I could definitely see this info being used to justify racism/separatism. Hell, it already is used to justify racism/separatism (see Stormfront.org, VNN forums, AmRen, etc.).

The fundamental problem is what do you do with the left half of the bell curve? Even among whites, half have an IQ equal to or below 100. The idea that you can forget them and just focus on right side of the bell curve is bull.

[Tex]

I find it hard to fathom that something which is true and which everyone took for granted was somehow erased from the collective consciousness. This implies the work of a leftist conspiracy.

I'll second Malloy here. Status rivalry plays a major role. And defeat in war plays a major role in reorganizing a pecking order. The disappearance of the consensus on race and intelligence has less to do with a conspiracy than the emergence of a counter consensus. The key event here was World War II. H.G. Wells, G.B. Shaw, Margaret Sanger, J.B.S. Haldane - before Second World War, people on the left who subscribed to the old consensus on intelligence are easy to find. After the War, the crowd grew thin - even on the right. Franz Boaz and his handmaiden, Margaret Mead, played perhaps the biggest role in the inauguration of the post-War counter consensus.

[Tex]

The fall of Communism on the other end of the spectrum should have provided a major corrective to this trend, but it didn't.

I have to disagree here. E.O. Wilson, J.R. Harris, Steven Pinker, the collapse of the Soviet Empire and its "New Socialist Man" has occasioned emergence of an hereditarian school of thought. Before the fall of the Wall, Wilson was pilloried and demonized. He now receives accolades. With the accumulation of the genetic information in the wake of the Human Genome Project, it is likely that Young Turks will batter their "betters" on their way to the top of the academic status heap using a club forged from genes. But these things take time. Social constructivist are fighting a rearguard action. Even figures on the far left, such as Peter Singer, are starting to sing a nativist tune. Also observe the resurgence of interest in the quasi-Darwinian mutualism of Kropotkin.

[Tex]

Even if we were to point out the low IQ of certain races, it wouldn't change that much in terms of class polarization because the low IQ prohibits these people from attaining employment that pays good middle class wages.

The technology for boosting IQ is almost in our grasp. It is just a matter of time and money. Once the genes for IQ have been uncovered (a matter of time), parents can use existing methods of in vitro fertilization to screen for the trait (a matter of money). Parents can then mine their own genetic material for the best that resides within. I suspect that popular IQ denial will continue until the results of reproductive technologies make it next to impossible to deny without being laughed at. Perhaps two generations.

Presumably a progressive policy implied in this development would be to make these technologies as cheaply and as widely available as possible.

One hurdle will be natural inclinations. IVF is not as fun as and considerably more expensive than reproduction the old fashioned way. People with low IQs will be more likely to be less inclined to assume the expense and forego the pleasure.

[Alex]

The technology for boosting IQ is almost in our grasp. It is just a matter of time and money.

I think someone has been watching Gattaca one too many times. I have been hearing that genetic engineering for intelligence is "just within our grasp" for years. Yet, several years later, we are not much closer. Those who think that genetic engineering will be used to solve the IQ problem are not being realistic (at least, they are not realistic about the time frame). I don't even expect this type of procedure to be possible during my life time.

[Tex]

Those who think that genetic engineering will be used to solve the IQ problem are not being realistic (at least, they are not realistic about the time frame). I don't even expect this type of procedure to be possible during my life time.

I say two generations, maybe three. That yields 40 to 60 years. Perhaps during the lifetime of your grandchildren. I'm not as optimistic as Kurzweil.

If the leftists truly believed that there were no differences in intelligence, they would actively support scientific study in this area in order to prove they are right. Instead, they vehemently try to suppress any such study.

I dont think you have been paying attention- it would be close to impossible to fund and publish in a top journal a study which undermined Global Warming. If did you, you could be kicked out of your professional organization and ABC News would supress any reporting about your study. If you wanted to talk on campus, your reports would go unread, you would be accused of being in the pay of 'big oil', and you would be hit with pies and shouted down by high IQ campus radicals before you could speak.

So we dont need a pretense that the left is interested in rational argument and the scientific process when it is not in service to their ideology. They spent long enough willfully ignoring the disastrous result of the marxist command economy and the 10's of millions that were outright killed in China and Russia. The Left's current dalliance with science is largely because they feel that it undermines religion and those religious fuddie duddies who would take away their pot.

It just a matter of time before they revert wholeheartedly to their homebase in existentialism and deconstructionism and desert science for gaia.

[JewishAtheist]

I have only two complaints with your post.

1) The "typical moderate liberal" is NOT "the type who lives in Manhattan, votes Democratic, and makes a lot of money." This skewed view of yours is probably the source of most of your ridiculous posts about what "liberals" think and how we are hypocritical. The overwhelming majority of liberals are not well-off Manhattanites.

2) I don't agree that the person from a hundred years ago was closer to the truth than today. You turn the IQ-race question into a yes/no one, which hides the fact that most white people a hundred years ago probably believed blacks were MUCH less intelligent than whites. If you'd asked that hypothetical white person whether a black could ever be a realistic presidential candidate, he would have said, of course not. If you'd have asked him whether there would be at least a few blacks in the upper echelons of almost every field of science, academia, and business, he would have said, of course not.

The single SD difference in IQ between blacks and whites is much more than most people think, yes. But it's much smaller than people thought previously. We've simply over-corrected.

You also must take into account the very real evils that have been overcome in part by this ignorance of reality. Remember when you talk about the white person from a hundred years ago that SLAVERY was only banned a hundred and fifty years ago. It was only FIFTY years ago that blacks were banned from white schools, restaurants, beaches, clubs, etc.

Would we even have a black middle class today if people had known about the IQ gap? The uber-rationalists who tend to blog about this subject can easily differentiate between averages and individuals, but most people aren't that sophisticated. If they knew about the gap, I'd bet anything that a given black person would constantly underestimated. In fact, black people are already underestimated way too often.

[trumwill]

And you if you had asked him if blacks were typically not as smart as whites, he would have also said, "of course." So what has happened is that the fact of differences in intelligence has been purged from the public consciousness.

A number of other things have happened in the last 100 years in regards to perceptions on different racial and ethnic groups.

[Mensarefugee]

"Would we even have a black middle class today if people had known about the IQ gap?"

A substantial portion of the Middle Class Black today are middle class by stealing the jobs from more competent people. Read up on the robin hood effect http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/robinhood.htm

You assume what we have now is "normal" while the alternative is costly. Fact is both have costs.

[Half Sigma]

"Read up on the robin hood effect"

I think that La Griffe du Lion is overstating the Robin Hood effect because he's assuming a perfect correlation between income quintile and IQ.

[JewishAtheist]

You assume what we have now is "normal" while the alternative is costly. Fact is both have costs.

And you're the first commenter I've seen on this blog to even acknowledge that the alternative has costs.

[Gannon]

It is relatively well documented that there are average IQ differences between races, and even gender. Men have more low and high IQ's than women, which explains why the best and worst students in school tend to be male. The problem with acknowleding publicly the differences in IQ between races is that some political groups might try to use this fact to justify legal discrimination. It is important to understand that IQ differences doesn't allow to classify certain races as subhuman. Everybody has the same rights in front of the law, but socail outcomes can not be guaranteed. Of course, some blacks by the way will achieve middle class status because while most blacks have a lower IQ than average asians, jews or whites, a few of them will have a high IQ (Bell Curve distribution).
I went to an American public high school, and what shocked me the most about blacks wasn't the fact that they had noticeably lower IQs, but the overall aggresiveness they displayed.

[bbartlog]

I have been hearing that genetic engineering for intelligence is "just within our grasp" for years. Yet, several years later, we are not much closer.

You haven't been paying close enough attention, then. Many candidate genes / allelic variants have been identified. The cost of sequencing keeps dropping. Preimplantation screening (thus far just for genetic diseases) is already a reality. An ambitious person with deep pockets could probably perform preimplantation screening for some speculative IQ-boosting alleles even today.
Of course, preimplantation screening for IQ-boosting genes doesn't qualify as 'genetic engineering' by a strict definition. If you're waiting for de novo creation/insertion of alleles to boost IQ (or anything else) then twenty years is a reasonable timeframe. But the practical impact of preimplantation screening for desirable variants will be dramatic enough, and I expect the first infants screened that way to be born within five years.

[Turambar]

I think in your time line that you overlook the revulsion that people had that the world had been ripped apart by racial supremacists in World War II. The way the idea of pruning undesirable traits from the human gene pool was taken to its logical conclusion was distasteful, and so people rightly stopped focusing on group differences.

As a white conservative, I find it plausible that there could be a racial difference in average IQ, because it appear plausible that there is a genetic basis to the result of Kenyan runners. If there is one physical manifestation of a genetic difference, why couldn't there be more? I do have to say that I am not convinced that 100% of the difference in IQ as measured is based on difference in intelligence. Black culture and environment puts a kid in a pretty bad starting point for academic achievement.

But supposing the IQ disparity is valid. Why would you be against No Child Left Behind and having expectations of every child to perform satisfactorily? Excessively publicizing each newly discovered differences between group's IQ would seem to have no public policy advantage. Instead it would undermine the confidence of black children- convincing them that they they themselves must be at the bottom of the curve when in fact they might be at the top, sabotaging what would otherwise be an ability to prosper academically.

All children should be expected to obtain a basic standard of math and written literacy. Next to no one would be able to do it it they were told they were part of the 'dummy' group. So why do we want the government trumpeting that?

And before we go messing about engineering the gene pool of the population, is there any study mapping IQ to a 'happy successful life'? And are we really so sure its a linear correlation? Past a certain IQ level [mine!] does the advantage go away and you are left with a bunch of passive, neurotic individuals that fence over who should be let into their .0001% society but never produce anything of value to the world? Are the smartest people you know really the happiest? I suspect that we might be much better off with a country with an average IQ of 120 than 160.

[Mike S]

My initial thoughts, before I get too deeply into the comments, is that what's happened in the last hundred years isn't necessarily that we ignore the evidence given that people in racial minorities don't score as well on specific tests, but that we allow that their experiences due to their environment have a stronger impact on their cognitive abilities than was believed a hundred years ago, and racial minorities on the whole grow up in a less suitable environment for learning the sorts of things tested on IQ tests.

[Brandon Berg]

Similarly conservatives will easily deny evolution while simultaneously following the their medication regimens to avoid antibiotic resistance.

This isn't necessarily inconsistent. The process by which natural selection increases the frequency of certain alleles within a population is well-understood and experimentally reproducible. The process by which natural selection turns bacteria into animals, or even proteans, is not.

[Mike S]

"I dont think you have been paying attention- it would be close to impossible to fund and publish in a top journal a study which undermined Global Warming. If did you, you could be kicked out of your professional organization and ABC News would supress any reporting about your study. If you wanted to talk on campus, your reports would go unread, you would be accused of being in the pay of 'big oil', and you would be hit with pies and shouted down by high IQ campus radicals before you could speak."

Are you part of that scientific community? None of the research that has been presented as evidence against global warming has withstood scientific review. To my knowledge, every argument has been deemed incomplete, or a misinterpretation of data.

[dearieme]

Schooling problems are international: scroll down to "classroom warrior" at
http://clivedavis.blogs.com/clive/

[The Superfluous Man]

What would the "Bell Curve" info change? About the only thing I can think of is the USA's immigration policy...and that is it.
False. While the Bell Curve and the like cannot falsify certain leftist statements about what we 'ought' to do, it can make them less compelling. (Taken from Neven Sesardic's book on heritability, which is a good read) Here's a common leftist argument:
1. Ought Statement: We should extend everyone equal opportunity.
2. Fact: Social differences between the races are the result of discrimination.
3. Therefore, we should seek to eliminate differences between the races.

You can come up with an alternative justification, but it won't be as 'ennobling' and convincing as 'end racism now!'

Low IQ people of all races are pretty much screwed.
They're doing quite well for themselves right now.

Tex,
I read somewhere but can't find any more evidence for, that though many of the early progressives believed that blacks were inferior, they also believed in a Lamarckian theory of evolution, under which blacks could, with help, be made equal. They ultimately switched to a Darwinian model of evolution. Instead of retaining the notion of black 'inferiority' and embracing hereditarianism, they proclaimed black equality to keep alive their hope for racial equality.

If they knew about the gap, I'd bet anything that a given black person would constantly underestimated.
Probably true to a significant extent, and would no doubt make many whites unforgivably rude to blacks. But, According to Stereotype Accuracy: Toward Appreciating Group Differences, the conductors of the surveys cited could not find a single person that believed a stereotype like 'Germans are efficient' is true of every single member of the given group.

way the idea of pruning undesirable traits from the human gene pool was taken to its logical conclusion was distasteful I haven't read Mein Kampf myself, but I've heard that Hitler viewed the Jews as a threat to the power of the native Germans, rather than an inferior race to be swept away.

Why would you be against No Child Left Behind and having expectations of every child to perform satisfactorily?
Because NCLB is utopian. If IQ is as stable as we think, NCLB's mandates are beyond reach.

Instead it would undermine the confidence of black children
How many black (or white) children know about NCLB in the first place? IQ findings should be used to constrain our policy goals. It could also be used for 'tracking' or similar uses, but that would be at the individual level. There is overlap between the races. A group's self concept is inversely related to its IQ, according to Rushton - http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_table1.html

Are the smartest people you know really the happiest? I suspect that we might be much better off with a country with an average IQ of 120 than 160.
I definitely agree, on both counts. People here go on as if everyone with a sub-130 IQ mopes around in their trailer all day, moaning about how they're unfit to get a "meaningful" job at Morgan Stanley. They're probably happier than us.

[Fred]

"Why would you be against No Child Left Behind and having expectations of every child to perform satisfactorily?"

Because, by implementing NCLB, you are either mandating outcomes that you know to be unattainable, or you are defining "satisfactory" in such a way that it becomes meaningless.

If you establish benchmarks that every child can reach, then these benchmarks will be laughably easy for well over 95% of the students. So why even bother?

Oh, there is a third option: you establish semi-meaningful benchmarks, and then you fiddle with the evaluation system in such a way that it looks like you're approaching success. This may get the adminstrators off your back for a while. It also makes the educational system even more of a farce than before and provides yet another reason for teachers with career options to leave the field.

It's a very bad idea to base public policy on false premises and unattainable ideals, which I think are both central flaws in NCLB.

"All children should be expected to obtain a basic standard of math and written literacy. Next to no one would be able to do it it they were told they were part of the 'dummy' group."

Actually, I think this is a false premise as well. People routinely discover that they can learn something which they originally feared might be beyond them. Does self-doubt alone cripple the academic success of many otherwise capable students?

I doubt it.

[Fred]

"People here go on as if everyone with a sub-130 IQ mopes around in their trailer all day, moaning about how they're unfit to get a "meaningful" job at Morgan Stanley.

Indeed. It's hard sometimes to remember that there are people out there who, in lieu of in depth statistical analyses, are actually living.

[mondo]

A substantial portion of the Middle Class Black today are middle class by stealing the jobs from more competent people. Read up on the robin hood effect http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/robinhood.htm

You assume what we have now is "normal" while the alternative is costly. Fact is both have costs.

What's your alternative? The "alternative" I imagine is more violence, crime, and rioting. Of all ethnic groups, asians get hit hardest by affirmative action policies, but asians aren't really helping their cause by being generally law-abiding.

I just came back from proctoring a grade-school math competition. The differences in scores between different school districts were quite astounding, but predictable by the Bell Curve.

[JewishAtheist]

And there are those of us with > 130 IQs who realize happiness isn't necessarily found by having a six-figure job in Manhattan.

mondo, should we essentially keep paying "protection" to keep the peace, or did I miss your point?

[Peter]

I read The Bell Curve when it first came out, and over the years I've become more and more skeptical of its conclusions. If certain groups really did suffer from an I.Q. deficit of a full standard deviation we'd expect them to be quite a bit worse off than the majority by most socioeconomic standards. While these sort of gaps exist, of course, they're not as yawning as one would expect from the so-called I.Q. deficiency and to a considerable extent result from the existence of a a small but persistent underclass found especially among the "low I.Q." groups. Meanwhile, more and more members of these groups are entering the mainstream of prosperous American life, which doesn't seem consistent with a big I.Q. gap.

JA, I am hoping you don't have your head in the oven. How bad can a job that pays 6 figures be? What does your boss have you doing, throwing puppies in a wood chipper? Then again maybe you work for yourself.

[mondo]

IQ and the g factor doesn't really mean anything in the labor market except for certain, relatively few number of jobs and professions. Most jobs require a certain level of minimum competence, muscle, and the ability to get along with others and obey your superiors. Connections and social networks matter more than test scores and grades. Entitlement programs (AA, legacies, etc) go a long way. If you're "unhooked," you have to show you want in the club more badly than the other applicants. Doing well in school equating to automatic success in the real world is one of the bigger lies your parents and teachers tell you. See the student loan justice thread for evidence.

mondo, should we essentially keep paying "protection" to keep the peace, or did I miss your point?

I was being somewhat sarcastic, but I think there's some truth in it.

[JewishAtheist]

JA, I am hoping you don't have your head in the oven. How bad can a job that pays 6 figures be? What does your boss have you doing, throwing puppies in a wood chipper? Then again maybe you work for yourself.

How bad can it be? 80+ hour workweeks, soul-killing work, high-stress, etc. I'm not saying nobody should go that route, just that it's not the only (or even best, necessarily) route to happiness. For some, living in a smaller city or not even in a city can provide a much better life than trying to keep up with the Joneses in Manhattan.

Well, I say we cut off the entitlements and see what happens. It is one hell of a system if we have to hand over the money to keep riots, murder, theft and the like from being worse than they actually are. But it never seems to be enough anyway. Crime and degeneracy are worse now than before the Great Society. If there is going to be an uprising because the checks don't get cut, then so be it.

So when you move, can I have your place? I'll also need a recommendation from you since I'll be taking over your office.

[secret asian man]

JA:

The uber-rationalists who tend to blog about this subject can easily differentiate between averages and individuals, but most people aren't that sophisticated. If they knew about the gap, I'd bet anything that a given black person would constantly underestimated. In fact, black people are already underestimated way too often.

And that's the problem with modern liberals, right there.

What you're basically saying is: "The common people are too stupid to understand the truth. Us elites ought to lie to them for their own good."

[trumwill]

JA,

Have you given some thought to moving to a smaller city or a city in the midwest, south, or west? If not, why not?

[JewishAtheist]

no name:

Well, I say we cut off the entitlements and see what happens.

Do you think society has any responsibility at all towards helping those who need help? Or do we just let them die or hope voluntary charities do enough?

SAM: What you're basically saying is: "The common people are too stupid to understand the truth. Us elites ought to lie to them for their own good."

I did not condone lying. I was simply relating what might happen if the truth were known. Besides, it's not like liberals have a monopoly on the noble lie. Conservative elites use the people's naive religion to serve their ends and the Bush administration never met a lie it didn't like.

trumwill:

I don't live in Manhattan. I was responding to HS's laments about how difficult it is there.

JA, obviously, nobody is saying letting people die in the streets or startve to death. But why do we have to fork over increasing amounts of money to finance degenerate lifestyles? What did this nation do before the Great Society? Was it some dark time when the trash collectors would remove bodies from the gutters every morning?
Today, there are food stamps, welfare checks, free medical care, free family planning, Section 8 housing, yet the underclass seems to be obese with all kinds of health problems, wrecks public housing projects and keeps having kids while committing all kinds of crimes.
I pay for my healthcare, I pay for my food and I pay the rent. And I pay for theirs as well. I am sick and tired of driving to work past housing projects and seeing the satellite dishes that have sprouted and the fancy cars parked there. I am not opposed to charity or safety nets, but this insanity has to stop. I am in NJ and I remember some years ago, there was a bill to stop giving welfare cases larger check each time they had a kid (the policy ws that for each child you had, you received an increase). Well, the usual suspects went nuts making all the usual claims about how wrong it was. In any event, that policy got passed but I am sure they snuck it back into the system in some way anyway. Sorry about the rant, but it has gone way beyond a safety net or charity.

[JewishAtheist]

no name:

I'm all for policies which fix the problems you mention without getting rid of the safety net. So far, I haven't heard of many.

"I dont think you have been paying attention- it would be close to impossible to fund and publish in a top journal a study which undermined Global Warming. If did you, you could be kicked out of your professional organization and ABC News would supress any reporting about your study. If you wanted to talk on campus, your reports would go unread, you would be accused of being in the pay of 'big oil', and you would be hit with pies and shouted down by high IQ campus radicals before you could speak."

Are you part of that scientific community? None of the research that has been presented as evidence against global warming has withstood scientific review. To my knowledge, every argument has been deemed incomplete, or a misinterpretation of data.

You missed the point totally. I was commenting on what HS saying about the left being open to scientific findings.

In fact, if you if you dont take a loyality pledge to their worldview they want you blackballed:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

I wonder why no one in Hollywood is working on a "State of Fear" movie despite the fact that adaptations of Michael Crichton's books are some of the hottest properties.

I think you have to face it- the Left really does not welcome theories that dont fit into its worldview and tries to suppress them. If you think they'd welcome IQ studies that show a racial basis, I think that you are wrong.

JA,
I don't see how preserving a safety net for those truly in need has to be contingent on financing underclass handouts and maintaining their bread and circuses. Linking the two is a bit disingenuous.

[Turambar]

"All children should be expected to obtain a basic standard of math and written literacy. Next to no one would be able to do it it they were told they were part of the 'dummy' group."

Actually, I think this is a false premise as well. People routinely discover that they can learn something which they originally feared might be beyond them. Does self-doubt alone cripple the academic success of many otherwise capable students?

Take the case of the whiny little bitch Rosner- he wanted to get into theoretical physics but found out his IQ and thought it was too low for the field so he became a social aberrant.

Those people presumably have not been presented by the government with a study telling them they are stupid. Yeah, everybody has times when course material kicks their ass but at least they can draw on the encouragement they have received in the past, the knowledge that their father is expecting them to get an A, or knowing they have to pass the course somehow to graduate on time. Then they buckle down, study all night, reread chapters etc until they get it.

The majority of blacks are capable of academic achievement- how can you send them en mas a message of failure and inadequacy? The current black culture already makes it hard enough for a black kid to succeed when giving yourself a goofy nickname and producing street mix tapes as seen as more valuable than turning in a really good report at school.

The government needs to see that all of its citizens get an education so they can function. Warehousing kids, letting them slide through with no expectations has got to stop. There is no reason why 95% of these kids cant obtain minimal proficiency by the time they graduate other than schools and pupils being disinterested in those goals. I think you overestimate how high the standards are.

[mondo]

Well, I say we cut off the entitlements and see what happens.

Government-generated work (and the politics and entitlements behind it) encompasses and embodies a huge swath of the American economy: the military-industrial complex, farm subsidies, public structures and utilities, etc. One could argue that by nature of our fiat currency, everyone's way of life is entirely dependent directly or indirectly from government jobs or contracts. Wealth itself is an illusory bubble and publicly shared state-of-mind. True wealth is only generated from land and sea and that sort of wealth is getting scarcer. The further away you're from the government teat, the more capitalistic things seem to be, but everything still depends on the government to generate and create work (and hopefully that work makes our lives and society better).

I'm not opposed to Section 8, foodstamps, welfare, as long as that person is working. It's subsidized cheap labor. There's probably far more money and federal budget being "bled" to highly-educated engineers, programmers, scientists, and lawyers sitting in their cubicles. Medical costs are going through the roof because we consider good health and long life an entitlement.

Turambar,
It has been my observation that the black community really doesn't seem to care about its youth's lives, much less their academic achievment. Young black men kill each other at what frankly is a rate almost comparable to warfare and this has been going on for quite a while with no signs of stopping.

[mondo]

The last thing we need is universal education. Frankly, a third to a half the children are unsuitable for it, and we need trash-collectors, cleaners, and field laborers in the future without having to import them in.

[JewishAtheist]

no name:

don't see how preserving a safety net for those truly in need has to be contingent on financing underclass handouts and maintaining their bread and circuses. Linking the two is a bit disingenuous.

There's obviously a tradeoff between the number of freeloaders and the number of legitimate people in need you can help. The more you spend on cracking down on freeloaders, the less you can spend on helping the deserving. At some point, it's not worth cracking down on the remaining freeloaders.

As I said, though, I'd support any policy that cut down on freeloading without harming the people who really need the help.

mondo: There's probably far more money and federal budget being "bled" to highly-educated engineers, programmers, scientists, and lawyers sitting in their cubicles.

Ain't that the truth. The people bitching about welfare queens, etc., hardly ever complain about all the military contractors and the like making cushy six-figure incomes. Funny how "conservatives" think cutting government employees is a net plus even though the government ends up spending far more on contractors. Not to mention elective wars.

The more you spend on cracking down on freeloaders, the less you can spend on helping the deserving. At some point, it's not worth cracking down on the remaining freeloaders.

Frankly, that is bullshit. How about asking these people why they are driving an Escalade if they are getting public assistance? It is not exactly hidden form view. At least it is a start. Liberals want a Christmas party for the underclass and we have to pay for it. They don't want to spend any time and money on finding the "remaining freeloaders" because that is the majority on public assistance. However, you are correct about military contracting. We have people being hurt and killed because instead of buying existing stuff off the shelf that works, Raytheon gets to develop equipment that will take years to reach the field (thus reinventing the wheel and raking in god knows what kind of money). Or, they field a piece of shit that is a deathtrap (Stryker). Often cash is spent on flying disasters like the Osprey that I wouldn't get in for 10 seconds even if I was given $5 million and and evening with Jennifer Connolly. But that is another post and comment thread.

[bbartlog]

I suspect that we might be much better off with a country with an average IQ of 120 than 160.

That may well be true. But while I expect the ethical and societal implications of preimplantation screening for traits to be hotly debated long before the millionth baby conceived by these processes is born, you only need to run a few numbers to see that it will take quite a long time to move the country's average IQ to 120. And once we reach that point I would think we'll be in a better position to see whether attaining an average IQ of 160 would be worthwhile.

[Dareano]

I have known about the IQ differences that exist between races for some time, but have never discussed it with a living soul. If you do discuss the subject you have two options; claim that IQ is utterly meaningless or claim that the differences are obviously caused by nurture. To say anything else is tantamount to endorsing Hitler. So Jason Malloy is right.

There are times when going against society makes you cool or an iconoclast, and there are times when it makes you a leper. Nobody wants to be a leper!

[JewishAtheist]

How about asking these people why they are driving an Escalade if they are getting public assistance?

I'd be in favor of that. Is it your position that liberals want people on public assistance driving Escalades? Talk about a straw man.

My position is that the left/liberals in this nation don't want to examine the entitlement program too closely because they will not like what they find. Basically that these poor, noble, downtrodden folk are anything but. In fact, they are irresponsible, lazy, low-IQ, have shitty future time orientation and prone to criminal activity while imbibing the worst that popular culture has to offer and emulating some of the worst trends today. Ask yourself why is that that whenever services/facilities like clinics or whatever are built for the underclass, it has to be built like a fortress. If you live in Philadelphia, take a look at the clinic on 321 Girard Avenue, it is built like a fortress. We all know why.

[Loki on the run]

The problem is, what are we going to do with all the people with IQs lower than about 110, especially the males, when robots start seriously taking over all the menial jobs?

[mondo]

IMO, government simply needs to be more demanding of the services it gets for the dole it provides. Upon closer examination, just about every institution is rotten. As I've said, many white-collar jobs are sinecures and entitlements that are to be expected after graduation from an expensive education. The high expectations and sense of entitlement we have for education is only the start. Enabling your kids to not work and sit in classrooms all day is a luxury for the privileged and those fortunate with good parents.

I would like to say that I welcome our new robot overlords!

[Turambar]

Mondo:
The last thing we need is universal education. Frankly, a third to a half the children are unsuitable for it, and we need trash-collectors, cleaners, and field laborers in the future without having to import them in

We already have universal education. Plus I can think of a lot more "last things" we need.
Are you really proposing a system where anyone who screws up on an aptitude test doesn't have to go to school any more? Because I think that almost every kid will take you up on that.

Basically that these poor, noble, downtrodden folk are anything but. In fact, they are irresponsible, lazy, low-IQ, have shitty future time orientation and prone to criminal activity while imbibing the worst that popular culture has to offer and emulating some of the worst trends today.

I dont know how you can conclude that they are all low IQ. Thomas Sowell makes to the point in "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" (which you can crib from the Amazon review) that this is more of an effect of the cracker culture than of ability, especially considering the counter examples of notable black achievement at places like Dunbar High school in DC. The difference is that the kids are in a culture that expect achievement. Is that really too much to hope for?

[Sen]

Up here in Canada, the publicly-funded CBC held a much-hyped Test the Nation, a nation-wide IQ test, a couple weeks back. I was actually quite surprised that an institution as notoriously liberal as the CBC would broadcast such a thing on TV, since the whole notion of IQ goes against the liberal grain - because IQ is a measure that's largely fixed, with a large genetic component (and liberals like to believe that everything is a function of environment), and because it's a measure with huge predictive powers in determining life outcomes, and its biological determinism makes liberals cringe.

A post on the show here.

Those result look a little suspicious- everybody is above average in everything. The only negative correlations seems to be if you like basketball, are a vegan, and are a non-drinker.

[Mike S]

"...it would be close to impossible to fund and publish in a top journal a study which undermined Global Warming. If did you, you could be kicked out of your professional organization and ABC News would supress any reporting about your study. If you wanted to talk on campus, your reports would go unread, you would be accused of being in the pay of 'big oil', and you would be hit with pies and shouted down by high IQ campus radicals before you could speak."

This statement is impossible to defend, because right now, since there hasn't been any scientifically credible work countering global warming, this is akin to saying that only scientifically credible research can be presented (which is certainly true).

"You missed the point totally. I was commenting on what HS saying about the left being open to scientific findings."

Perhaps I didn't treat your point in sufficient detail, which I'll now attempt to correct. Given the above, that your original statement is indefensible because credible research surrounding global warming hasn't emerged, my previous argument stands that the only credible scientific findings on global warming show it to be occurring, and the left is certainly using that research.

"In fact, if you if you dont take a loyality pledge to their worldview they want you blackballed:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528"

That's taking one persons statement, unaffiliated with any "liberal" group, and using it to label over half the country (the people who are tired of half-baked arguments against global warming). I think it's a little strong to argue that anyone against global warming should be stripped of their credibility, but I'd agree anyone against global warming without any evidence to counter the evidence for global warming isn't much of a scientist.

"I wonder why no one in Hollywood is working on a "State of Fear" movie despite the fact that adaptations of Michael Crichton's books are some of the hottest properties."

I can't speak to this, but I suppose you have a point here. The political sensitivity on the issue has made it so no one's willing to direct a work of fiction that attempts to argue against a fairly well-proven scientific theory.

"I think you have to face it- the Left really does not welcome theories that dont fit into its worldview and tries to suppress them."

I've sufficiently shown this to be unsupported by your earlier statements.

"If you think they'd welcome IQ studies that show a racial basis, I think that you are wrong."

I commented on this in another post; I haven't heard anything about "the Left" as a whole on IQ studies, but I've certainly seen the evidence that ethnic minorities in the US and less developed countries on average perform less well on IQ tests. I don't agree that this is purely based on genetics (which seems to be your conclusion).

[Mike S]

"IQ is a measure that's largely fixed, with a large genetic component (and liberals like to believe that everything is a function of environment), and because it's a measure with huge predictive powers in determining life outcomes, and its biological determinism makes liberals cringe."

A large part of liberal belief is based on the idea that environment plays a significant role in determining life outcomes, so that genetics alone is not a strong predictor of them. Are you trying to argue that I'm wrong?
As an interesting example of environment affecting genetics directly, suppose that women in some minority drink more than the national average while they're pregnant; this would result in more children being born brain-damaged, and I would expect the average IQ of people in that minority group to be lowered.

[mondo]

especially considering the counter examples of notable black achievement at places like Dunbar High school in DC. The difference is that the kids are in a culture that expect achievement. Is that really too much to hope for?

Are you saying one counter example outweighs the overwhelming body of evidence over the past 40 years of underclass underachievement? If the environment and culture is truly responsible for performance, then it's up to the parents and their communities to foster that, and not the state.

It's also up to students to create their own environments favorable to their goals when faced with bad ones. Anyone here who had midterms/finals, papers due in college while their friends down the dorm hall were bonging PBRs can attest to the individual power of the mind to resist peer pressure.

[Turambar]

This is not an argument about the facts of global warming, which seems to be your sacred cow. It a demonstration of the Left's approach to contrary opinions.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265464

The facts are Global Warming is a blank check for scientists to get funded for study after study. Except if you want to question the hypothesis. Then you have to be immediately discredited as a shill of some industry.

Presumably if the science is faulty it doesn't matter who funds it.

If you don't like that example, consider the example of the Duke LAX rape case. It is beginning to emerge that some percentage of the leftist faculty don't care so much about the guilt or innocence of the players involved as much as they do their opportunity to use the case to attack 'white privilege'.
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32542246&postID=2467576379109841668

"As a Duke professor mentioned, “There is a ‘let it end’ sense to it because the case has been so screwed up.”Not a demand to end the case because innocent people were prosecuted. A “‘let it end’ sense” because Nifong “screwed up.” "

The political sensitivity on the issue has made it so no one's willing to direct a work of fiction that attempts to argue against a fairly well-proven scientific theory.

This is pretty fast an loose with "well proven" since it hasn't been reproduced. And no one seemed hesitant to make "The DiVinci Code" even through it was rife with inaccuracies.

I don't agree that this is purely based on genetics (which seems to be your conclusion).

Thats not my conclusion at all. I think that it is plausible that there might be a genetic basis for IQ differences between groups but I am not convinced what percentage that might be. It is far more likely that popular black culture is causing most of the damage. I am a little dismayed that many people's attitude seems to be to sweep a whole section of the population under the mat for good. I think any IQ difference would pale next to the the destructive influence of an environment that deprecates studying and lauds the superficiality of $100 sneakers and "Cribs".

[Plobo]

Anybody who kids themselves into the belief that groups of people isolated enough to develop different physical traits haven't also developed different mental traits is a fool. The mind is a physical thing like the body.

Anybody who thinks that about 95% of the increased participation of blacks in the middle class isn't attributable to affirmative action or fear of lawsuits is also a fool.

And anybody stupid enought to believe that this situation will continue in perpetuity, as our country racks up titanic debts, heads toward an entitlement and retirement nightmare, ships its productive base overseas because we can't economically compete, and imports an increasing amount of stuff, including energy, that it pays for with IOU's is also a complete fool. This situation will unravel easily within the next five years. It's simply not sustainable. We cannot keep tens of millions of unproductive and grossly over-compensated quota hires afloat and compete with the rest of the world. Lest you think that profitable businesses are some sort of refuge, you should consider that they will be increasingly owned by foreigners unsympathetic to the quota recipients. Businesses are in business to make money, not to play social engineer. If we threaten them with lawsuits, they will simply move the business overseas. Watch the politicians jump when that tax base looks to leave, and the judges as well. The 70% of whites will actually become politically active when there are a lot fewer jobs available and the Boomers have to work until they drop. There will be no refuge.

Of course, none of the many trillions of dollars of largesse (orders of magnitude larger than any amount of cotton profits) will ever be recognized with thanks or appreciation. Just more cries and attacks once the charity is undone. I think that those trying to take a moral posture of superiority on this issue while denying the facts are ludicrous. There is no refuge from the laws of nature. And this applies to race as well as the rest. Time to wake up. Reality will be set upon us soon enough. Just thank God its not you.

[APH]

How about asking these people why they are driving an Escalade if they are getting public assistance?

I always liked the idea of requiring kids who squander their educational opportunity to pay back society the money spent on their public schooling. I'm talking about the chronically unemployed, functionally illiterate, or criminal-minded 20 and 30 year old somethings who chose not to pay attention in school or pursue any type of gainful employment. I went to school with 18 year old HS sophomores (the ones who didn't drop out) who probably spent 13 or 14 years in public education with absolutely nothing to show for it academic-wise. If you can get a job without any basic skills, my hats off to you. However, for the cream of the crap who defiantly resisted all efforts to learn and find themselves seeking some sort of government subsidization, part of me wants to say, "Your education cost $150,000 and you can't write a decent sentence or add fractions! First pay back (with the money you don't have) society for wasting their money on you, then we'll talk"

/BTW, I'm not really serious, I know this is as practical as disproving gravity...But the amateur economist in me wishes public institutions implemented more salient disincentives.

[Gannon]

Talking about babyboomers, how will the U.S. finance their retirement and healthcare?
The time to fulfill the fiscal promises has come.
Higher taxes, substantially lower benefits, or an combination of both? Now that's a truly interesting question.

[Turambar]

Anybody who thinks that about 95% of the increased participation of blacks in the middle class isn't attributable to affirmative action or fear of lawsuits is also a fool.

Why is it 95%? Not 90%, or 45% or 29.6%? I think you are pulling these stats out of your ass.

Why do you deny that a distribution of black IQ's means that some of them deserve to be in the middle class? In the upper classes. What the hell, even a hard working blue collar auto employee is middle class.

I had a black topology teacher who was very smart; I worked with an IT Manager at Harlem Hospital who was great. What about Dr. Ben Carson? These are all black men who merit what they have achieved.

I think you have let the distasteful nature of affirmative action and the shake down of the Wall Street Project drive you too far the other way.

If we threaten them with lawsuits, they will simply move the business overseas.

I think you are right about this, though. If Company A has a building with a sidewalk in front of it in Ohio they have just let themselves in for a whole lot of liability. Run the same building in India, and your risk is contained. Even if the labor rates were comparable, the "cost of doing business" in the West is the the bottom of the iceberg next to the comparable labor factors.

[mondo]

Talking about babyboomers, how will the U.S. finance their retirement and healthcare?

Via Social Security, the burden will increasingly fall upon immigrants and their children, like Sweden. If it's inevitable that we depend upon immigrants, then it would work better if they came from countries and regions with a previous history of post 1st-generation assimilation, net positive tax contribution, low crime, and a general propensity towards adapting the American way of life, culture, and language. This means Europe and, to some extent, East Asian countries as well as India.

[mondo]

It should also be noted that illegal immigrants are helping to prop up our Social Security system right now. They use fake SS ID cards to gain employment, pay taxes as part of their employment, but may end up ineligible for benefits to due their use of fake ID cards.

[Noumenon]

As I said before, I find it hard to fathom that something which is true and which everyone took for granted was somehow erased from the collective consciousness. This implies the work of a leftist conspiracy. The same conspiracy which is in operation today and which actively seeks to suppress any politically correct talk of differences in intelligence.

You're going over the edge here... deducing the existence of a conspiracy with unparalleled power to control people's speech everywhere is questionable to begin with. And you're postulating this based on the fact that people no longer believe something they believed a century ago? There are several much more likely explanations for this.
1) Truth does not always prevail in the end.
2) Ignorance can be fashionable.
3) You are wrong about IQ, basically like a Freudian who doesn't understand why people no longer believe in the id and the ego.
4) Moral beliefs trump truth. Evolution can't be believed if it means godlessness and IQ can't be believed if it means racism.

You're certainly not winning me over to the idea that IQ is a belief of the rationally minded by jumping to conclusions about invisible conspiracies. I'm not sure your brain is working right. As the bumper sticker says, "Don't believe everything you think."

[guest]

"Your education cost $150,000 and you can't write a decent sentence or add fractions! First pay back (with the money you don't have) society for wasting their money on you, then we'll talk"

Why should I be forced to pay the government back for compulsory education which proved to be worthless? That would be theft.

Continuing on the subject of attempted stifling of scientific inquiry, consider the efforts of Britain's Royal Society to force Exxon to defund anyone who is critical of global warming:

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

The huge amount of money we are talking about here? 2.9MUSD spread over 39 groups. Where is all this money we have been assured is 'buying off' scientists?

Not only is enough to stifle dissent, the enraged scientists also want Exxon to name names:

The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."

How open are these leftist to contrary opinions:

"Mr Ward said: "The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."

WTF. Where do these leftist get off curtailing free speech.

The Left has always been about curtailing free speech because inside they are a bunch of Stalinists who can't believe or accept that they could be wrong. Why do you think that communist from CA, Barbara Boxer, told us that the case was closed with global warming and that we (meaning you and me, she'll still take her husbands private jet) have to change our lives NOW! Gore is the same, just don't look at his electric bill. The left hold onto their beliefs with religious intensity, but they'll never admit it. Besides, they mean well (with our money), so that makes it OK.

[Mike S]

"This is not an argument about the facts of global warming, which seems to be your sacred cow. It a demonstration of the Left's approach to contrary opinions."

You used the example of research against global warming to support an argument that the Left ignores inconvenient credible scientific research. I attempted to demonstrate that your example didn't support your argument because the research against global warming hasn't been unilaterally flawed. I guess I've failed at that, so I'll concede the point that there are people in the US who will ignore inconvenient scientific research, and global warming is one of the most prominent areas and therefore has plenty of examples of people ignoring research.
I disagree that the Left ignores this research any more than other political groups. Stronger statements could probably be said, but this one is sufficient and easier to defend for the topic at hand.

[Turambar]

Very nice admission but not really germane to the topic. But I am afraid that you also have to admit that this is not a question of 'ignoring' research- as Bob Ward wrote "we can't have people trying to undermine it." So how to shut up opposing voices- force defunding, try to revoke professional certifications, accuse them of being 'Holocaust deniers'. And I cant imagine your chances of getting tenure.

So back to HS original point- am I surprised that the Left ignores IQ research? I am surprised that he is surprised.

[APH]

Why should I be forced to pay the government back for compulsory education which proved to be worthless? That would be theft.

Well I wasn't serious and I know you're just making a valid point, but for the sake of argument, let me present a couple of reasons. Note, I'm knowingly responding with a couple logical fallacies because even a flawed rationale can provide food for thought:

1. Because you made it worthless. Education is a unique thing. The cost of public education is borne by the government because the return on investment from imparting a "decent" education is deemed high enough to warrant the financial burden. At least that's conventional wisdom to some people. Now, if you consciously decide to piss this special investment away (in spite of the million times you are reminded the importance of an education), maybe you shouldn't be allowed to apply for any future subsidies.

2. Because it's also compulsory to follow the rules of society: traffic laws, behavior in public, etc. There's consequences for violating them and if you're grossly negligent in your schoolwork, perhaps there should be some guaranteed consequences for wasting your education. Again, no form of "payback" would be applicable unless you are applying for some sort of government subsidization.

Again, I know those are flawed arguments (I'm aware that I'm mixing up codified laws with educational expectations, etc.) and the fundamental premise of the "payback" is screwed because these people, presumably, would have no money to pay back anyway. I'm also not suggesting the government get the money back to piss away either...The point is this: Yes, the economy "punishes" most people who make bad choices with their basic education, but that punishment is not a deterrent to a lot of short-sighted-thinking teenagers. Maybe knowing, with certitude, as a student that your bad decisions will guarantee some deprivation of subsidies will change things...

OK, fire away :)

[guest]

What kind of subsidies are you thinking about? Unless you think that people who neglect their education should be left to starve in the streets, such subsidies should not exist in the first place.

[structure]

"You also must take into account the very real evils that have been overcome in part by this ignorance of reality. Remember when you talk about the white person from a hundred years ago that SLAVERY was only banned a hundred and fifty years ago. It was only FIFTY years ago that blacks were banned from white schools, restaurants, beaches, clubs, etc."

Slavery does not depress IQ for 100 years after it ends. Jews were enslaved in Europe and did not suffer any IQ loss. US blacks have gained a considerable IQ advantage over African blacks due to the 25% admixture with Europeans. Each percent of admixture contributes approximately 0.2 IQ points. This mechanism is discussed in detail in Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis by Richard Lynn.

"Would we even have a black middle class today if people had known about the IQ gap?"
Yes.

" In fact, black people are already underestimated way too often."
Not so. Blacks are considerably overestimated in their cognitive abilities.

[David Alexander]

US blacks have gained a considerable IQ advantage over African blacks due to the 25% admixture with Europeans.

I'd also argue that the consistant food supply in the US has had a role to play. The African food supply has been more inconsistant than the European or Asian food supply due to inconsistant rainfall patterns.

"Would we even have a black middle class today if people had known about the IQ gap?"
Yes.

Explain why you'd think that's true? I'd imagine that there would be some stereotyping amongst whites, and they would refuse to employ blacks because most would have low IQs to prevent them from doing white collar middle class work.

[structure]

"what's happened in the last hundred years isn't necessarily that we ignore the evidence given that people in racial minorities don't score as well on specific tests, but that we allow that their experiences due to their environment have a stronger impact on their cognitive abilities than was believed a hundred years ago, and racial minorities on the whole grow up in a less suitable environment for learning the sorts of things tested on IQ tests."

The only environmental factors that influence intelligence are those that relate to exposures to poisons, bacterial infections, and the like. There is no effect at all (in adults) from social factors, such as family, friends, schools, institutions, etc. It is impossible (at the present) to boost real cognitive ability by any known form of social intervention. IQ can be depressed by poor nutrition, and in that respect it can be helped by preventing poor nutrition. But, it is important to understand that such nutritional deficiency does not exist in a statistically detectible way in the US or in other industrialized countries. The conditions that are associated with IQ depression are very severe.

[structure]

"If certain groups really did suffer from an I.Q. deficit of a full standard deviation we'd expect them to be quite a bit worse off than the majority by most socioeconomic standards."

Let's name the certain group as blacks. In the US, blacks at and above the 40th percentile of IQ earn more than whites and the gap widens from that point up. At all levels of IQ, blacks hold higher prestige jobs than their white counterparts. At all levels of IQ, blacks have had more education than whites. Why? Affirmative action. Are blacks more capable? No. At any given level of IQ, test scores overpredict the performance of blacks. That happens in spite of the income and education advantages that have fallen upon blacks as the direct result of overwhelming and never ending white guilt over slavery that resulted in blacks gaining at least 1 SD in the IQ spectrum simply because of their living in the US.

[Half Sigma]

When comparing a black and white of equal IQ, the black person usually has better social skills and a more extroverted personality (extroversion being generally valued in the U.S., much more so than in other countries).

[David Alexander]

the black person usually has better social skills

Are you kidding me? I don't want to fuel the racists, but there's no way that black people have better social skills. The black male on black male murder rate alone makes that statement bunk.

more extroverted personality

I'll agree with you there. I'm rather introverted by black standards, and even by white standards.

[structure]

"If you do discuss the subject you have two options; claim that IQ is utterly meaningless or claim that the differences are obviously caused by nurture. To say anything else is tantamount to endorsing Hitler."

Another option is to know the details of the subject and to state them clearly. I would never pretend to not know something that I know, such as this. If anyone wants to dispute me, he will have to have done a lot of homework, or will be run through the meat grinder. This is science, not politics, although politicians don't get it. Instead, they lie and pretend to be more ignorant than they are.

[Half Sigma]

there's no way that black people have better social skills. The black male on black male murder rate alone makes that statement bunk.

I'm talking about when IQ is equal. I'd expect that a black with an 85 IQ has better social skills than a white with an 85 IQ. Assuming equivalent upbringings.

[structure]

> "Would we even have a black middle class today
> if people had known about the IQ gap?"
> Yes.

"Explain why you'd think that's true? I'd imagine that there would be some stereotyping amongst whites, and they would refuse to employ blacks because most would have low IQs to prevent them from doing white collar middle class work."

I have already explained that pay, job status, and education are biased (by the endless US white guilt) in favor of blacks. That bias has nothing to do with IQ and everything to do with a form of guilt that has never affected other nations, but which is now a part of the social structure of the US. But, even if the playing field were simply even (instead of favoring blacks) there would still be a black middle class for two reasons. The first is that there are blacks of all IQ levels. The second is that class is largely determined by income and income is not locked to IQ. Yes, higher IQ statistically means higher income. Anyone who understands statistics can fill in the rest for himself.

[mondo]

Reaching the middle class isn't too hard, even for IQ ~85. You just need a stable marriage and commitment to the family formation. For whatever reason, there's less of that going on today.

[The Jetman]

Broken thinking abounds, above-average IQs notwithstanding. So much of this "debate" has degenerated into the prevailing 'neo-fascist' (conservative) vs 'neo-Soviet' (liberal) ranting that has the society virtually paralyzed.

I remember when 'The Bell Curve' came out, I had a heated argument w/ my girlfriend at the time, a practicing psychiatrist, who'd read the book. I hadn't read it, but we argued over something like this:

1) Does real intelligence have any correlation WRT IQ ? Is there a correlation bet race and intelligence ? That's right, I said intelligence. Every IQ test I've taken measured what I'd learned (to date) and how one processes that information (problem solving.) Something worthwhile to measure, but does it (ie. IQ) have anything to do w/ actual intelligence ? That is, the natural/organic ability/facility to process and use information effectively.

2) Do we know enough about the brain itself to make these kinds of definitive statements ? How does memory really work ? How do our cognitive centers really work ? Do we know enough to devise a 'benchmark' test (if you will) comparable to computer CPU benchmark programs ? That is, are there tests that can determine that a White person's brain operates at (let's say) 1GFLOPS, while a Black person's brain operates at 500MFLOPS ? Can we make a any meaningful comparison between the organic brains of different groups ? After all, no one here would dispute the seat of intelligence in human beings.

I recall from an episode of Nova about the Human Genome proj, that one of the geneticists indicated that only a handful of genes distinguished an Olympic-class runner from a runway model. We've named all of the genes, but we're a long way from knowing how groups of genes interact in determining outcomes. That is, it's a big leap from identifying the genes that cause Tay-Sachs or Down's Syndrome versus which genes make an Einstein. And do we know that Einstein would have become the giant he became, had he been born into different, less favorable circumstances ?

The noise about NCLB, Global Warming, etc illustrates a far more troubling issue than the consideration of the relationship bet race and intelligence. The terms, neo-Fascist/neo-Soviet, are intended to reflect distance and intrasiegence bet the polar extremes, not their real political leanings. The most vocal Conservatives seem organically opposed to anything emanating from the opposite quarter. While I find most Liberals less disagreeable, they are no less certain of their own righteousness and the stupidity of their opponents.

Does race have anything to do w/ intelligence ? Who knows and who cares ? The answer, one way or the other, isn't going to shape public policy. We'll still have to deal w/ the people we have, not the ones we'd prefer to have (I'd guess mostly smart ones.)

BTW, as some of the comments from this discussion illustrate, some so-called smart people are no prize either....

[structure]

Jetman: "I remember when 'The Bell Curve' came out, I had a heated argument w/ my girlfriend at the time, a practicing psychiatrist, who'd read the book. I hadn't read it, but we argued over something like ..."

It is amazing to see how many people are so brilliant and informed that they can debate the contents of an 845 page textbook without bothering to read it. You have my admiration.

I am going to respond to your specific points. I will start by noting that you used "real intelligence" without bothering to define it. I will correct your oversight by defining it for you. "Real intelligence" is the cognitive ability that accounts for the validity of IQ tests. In that light, real intelligence is best represented by g.

Jetman: "Is there a correlation bet [sic] race and intelligence ?"

Yes. The means for races and sub-race breeding groups are different. The highest is that of Ashkenazi Jews; the lowest is that of Bushmen. The global mean has been estimated at around IQ 85.

Jetman: "That's right, I said intelligence. Every IQ test I've taken measured what I'd learned (to date) and how one processes that information (problem solving.)"

IQ tests measure g and specific abilities, and there is a random error associated with each test item. The reason IQ tests are useful is that good ones load heavily on g and are, therefore, useful as proxies for g. Anything that has been rote learned or overlearned will be processed by the brain in a way that reduces or eliminates the role played by g. So, if someone tells you the answer to a test question before the test, you will not need much g to answer the question (memory is g loaded, so you will use some) and the question will effectively be useless as a measurement.

Specific abilities include both learned material and abilities that are specific to the task, but which do not load on g. For example, when math abilities are measured, they break down into g and abilities that pertain to math and nothing else. These non-g loadings are sometimes called narrow abilities and contribute very little to the validity of an IQ test, except in the right tail.

Jetman: "Do we know enough about the brain itself to make these kinds of definitive statements ? How does memory really work ? How do our cognitive centers really work ?"

The answer is that intelligence is understood well enough that its measurement is of known accuracy and is useful. If that were not true, people wouldn't even discuss IQ nor would they be concerned about whether their children have high or low IQs. You seem to want to argue for the sake of argument. You could equally well take on the subject of gravity. How does gravity really work? Do you know? Is it real? Can we calculate the forces of gravity? Yes, but the mechanism is not known. At this stage physicists are still offering ideas and trying to test them.

As for cognitive centers, they are presently being studied by structural and functional MRI. Richard Haier is the leading researcher in this field and is accompanied by others such as Rex Young and his colleagues in Albuquerque. Haier believes that it will be possible to measure IQ via imaging in the near future and to do so for less total cost than the administration of a proper IQ test.

Jetman: "Do we know enough to devise a 'benchmark' test (if you will) comparable to computer CPU benchmark programs ? That is, are there tests that can determine that a White person's brain operates at (let's say) 1GFLOPS, while a Black person's brain operates at 500MFLOPS ? Can we make a any meaningful comparison between the organic brains of different groups ?"

There are two categories of laboratory benchmarks at present. One is chronometric measurement, including elementary cognitive tests and inspection time measurements. The other is electroencephalography, including ratio indices, string length analysis, and latency measurements. The other benchmarks are imaging (as discussed above) and validity measures. The latter is effectively the bottom line with respect to the usefulness of IQ tests.

Jetman: " And do we know that Einstein would have become the giant he became, had he been born into different, less favorable circumstances ?"

It has been shown that Einstein's brain was so unusual in its cell structure that it is fair to say that it has never been observed in any other sample. I have seen estimates that the frequency of such structure would be in the one in a billion or so.

Jetman: "Does race have anything to do w/ intelligence ?"

Every breeding group has a different mean intelligence. Those differences are genetic, although they may be pushed further apart if the less intelligent group is suffering severe malnutrition (not seen in any industrialized nation). When two groups cross-breed, the mean for their children is half way between the means for the two groups. It is admixture that accounts for US blacks having higher IQs than African blacks. The difference can be calculated (and shown to be accurate) from the specific admixtures. This same effect can be seen within the US, where low admixture black populations have documented lower IQs than higher admixture populations. The specific low IQ groups are in Georgia and South Carolina. In every case, the mean for the group is 80 + (0.2 x European admixture).

Jetman: "Who knows and who cares ? The answer, one way or the other, isn't going to shape public policy. We'll still have to deal w/ the people we have, not the ones we'd prefer to have (I'd guess mostly smart ones.)"

The "who knows" is obvious: the scientific researchers who study intelligence and who write the papers that appear in journals dedicated to intelligence research. Whether anyone cares or not may be applied to all knowledge. In this case, however, our government sets public policy and spends our tax dollars based on that policy. Is it a good idea for them to force admission of low IQ people into various schools for political reasons? Would you want open heart surgery performed on you by someone who got through med school because of a quota and other government pressures? When you get on a 747, do you want to have a pilot who is smart enough to reach captain status, or one who got there because of his skin color?

Different topic -- Where did you learn punctuation? Are you the product of US government run schools? The correct usage of ? is to place it at the end of a sentence with no space before it.

[Horace Cole]

"Jewish Genius" by Charles Murray

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10855

[trixnee]

Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but, I don't think there are intelligence differences between the races. I think the problem is a lot of you are Americans and have only been exposed to African Americans who are conisdered to be black. Every African person I know pretty much fits the "Asian American" stereotype (quiet, studious, high achieving) - not to mention Eastern Europeans and Indians. The average IQ's of India and Africa are supposedly low, but it must be taken into account that many people in these regions are malnourished/rural/poor, whereas the "rich" and "elite" of these regions are outperforming Americans of all races (myself, par exemple).