Half Sigma in the New York Times

Longtime readers of my blog know that I link to the New York Times on an almost daily basis. Well finally, the New York Times has returned the favor and linked to me, in the article In DNA Era, Worries About Revival of Prejudice. Like Soylent Green, the New York Times is made of people, so I really need to thank New York Times reporter Amy Harmon for mentioning my blog in her article. And I would also like to thank her editors for publishing the article, which is the fairest coverage of the subject that I've seen in the mainstream media in a long time.

I will probably get a lot of new visitors because of the article. Unfortunately, because of the way the topic of race and intelligence has been framed by the mainstream media, most of the visitors will be prejudiced into thinking that I must be some kind of racist because I wrote that intelligence is mostly a genetic trait (although this is now generally acknowledged), and more controversially I wrote that this is a genetic trait that’s not distributed equally among the different races of humans (just as it’s not equally distributed among breeds of dogs).

I assure my new readers that I am neither a skinhead nor a white supremacist living in some compound in Idaho stocked with survivalist gear. I am an over-educated professional living in Manhattan. Once upon a time, I too believed the politically correct view that everyone had equal intelligence and it was all a matter of environment. When I was in college, I stumbled across the books of Arthur Jensen, which I found fascinating. Arthur Jensen is/was an educational psychologist at the University of California, Berkely who was the foremost researcher in the field of human intelligence. (See my recent blog post about Arthur Jensen.) Because I have a scientific and mathematical mind, I realized that Arthur Jensen was correct, and those who were attacking his research were obviously motivated by political reasons rather than a pursuit of the scientific truth.

When I first began blogging, race and intelligence was a topic I feared to write about, because I was afraid of being branded a racist. Larry Summers mentioned that men and women might have biologically based differences in cognitive abilities, and he was fired. James Watson recently mentioned the issue of race and intelligence, and he was fired. We live in a world where free speech and scientific inquiry are suppressed, mostly by the political left. The Catholic Church is often mocked for sentencing Galileo to prison for publicly advocating the view that the earth revolves around the sun. Yet most people today, if they were told it was racist to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, would merrily call for Galileo’s excommunication from the world of work. They wouldn’t bother to try and understand what Galileo was saying. After all, understanding his theory requires knowledge of geometry and math. It’s much easier to call him a racist and demand that he be fired.

I have since discovered that there are many other like-minded bloggers in the blogosphere, the most notable of which are Steve Sailer and the bloggers at Gene Expression. Because of the internet, the truth can no longer be suppressed forever, and within fifteen years I predict that a person will be able to publicly state the truth about genes and intelligence and not be cast out from polite society. Fifteen years is the timeframe mentioned by James Watson for discovering the root genetic basis for human cognitive abilities, and as the former head of the Human Genome Project and Director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, he probably knows what he’s talking about.

For this reason, I have recently been blogging more often on the topic of human cognitive abilities. I feel like I am playing a small but important part in publicizing scientific knowledge that will have a major impact on the way we view psychology, sociology, and economics, and will have important implications for government policies. I know that many people fear this knowledge becoming public. They think that horrible things will happen. Images of Nazi Germany are often evoked. I think such fears are ridiculous. Will you become an evil genocidal murderer because you know that intelligence is genetic? Of course you won’t. So why do you think your neighbors will? Understanding our genetic differences will help us solve our social problems. Because no problem can be solved without knowing the causes of the problem. And that is what we are trying to do now: solve problems based on a faulty understanding of their causes.

Comments

[James]

I am an educational psychology student and I completely agree with you. I wish more people were aware of Jensen's work (and the work of many other intelligence researchers). The unwillingness of the public to accept differences in intelligence causes us to waste huge amounts of money on ineffective educational policies that are designed as if every student possessed average intelligence (NCLB being the most current example).

[DML]

I think Dr. Altshulter has it right:

"I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations,” said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small.”'

And *that's* the problem right there. People want to pin everything on genetics (because then we'd have a simple answer). Are you fat? It's genetic. Are you gay? It's genetic. Like hockey? It's genetic.

The truth is slippier than this. Genetics are influencers, but they are not perfect predictors of anything. Environment plays a huge and often the dominant role in determining how you turn out. But at the same time, genetics ARE influencers so they can't be ignored. The point is that there are two facets, which is easily forgotten.

We generally use educational scoring and IQ tests to measure intelligence. When one group generally tests far worse than others, the easy answer is to pin the difference on genetics. But it's also the wrong answer and it completely ignores the effect of environment. Even the Minnesota Transracial study doesn't factor out the effect of environment on IQ(Black children growing up in adopted White homes doesn't make them the same as White children growing up in adopted White homes).

On the intelligence question, here's what needs to be asked - if Blacks had the same emphasis on education as Whites and especially Asians, would their educational achievements and IQ test equally? My personal guess is that the answer would be "absolutely yes" and the Freakonomics researchers highlight a study on the IQ of babies that support this view. However this study was dismissed by this blog as worthless (Half Sigma provided no reason for his conclusion).

Half Sigma's dismissal of this and other evidence that run counter to his preconceptions point to another problem - people are prejudiced walking into the debate. It's impossible to get a truly neutral view. They'll ignore evidence that refutes their view and only look at evidence that supports it. And this is ultimately why we may never have a "real" answer to this question.

[YOMAMA]

What's intelligence?

[Dave]

Gene-influenced IQ and free-market economics are two research areas that universities are hostile to because their liberal orthodoxies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2u9OJvw5wk

[Marc]

DML,

Maybe Half Sigma dismissed the test of "infant IQ" because it didn't test IQ, as was claimed, but (ahem) "liveliness."

[Marc]

DML,

Maybe Half Sigma dismissed the test of "infant IQ" because it didn't test IQ, as was claimed, but (ahem) "liveliness."

[C.A. Baker, Ph.D.]

Has anyone mentioned the recent study suggesting that breast feeding stimulates brain development only if the infant expresses a certain genetic variant? A perfect example of interaction between nature and nurture...

[Tony]

What's intelligence?

Define definition.

[pjgoober]

The NYT article printed one sentence of Half Sigma's words and a whole paragraph of one of his commentators rebuttle's.

[mgl]

DML,

Please provide examples of IQ proponents who "pin everything on genetics".

That will be all.

[K]

About breast feeding, Steve Sailer says blacks are much less likely to breastfeed, and that blacks could close 1/3 of the IQ gap by matching the white breastfeeding rate.

This is one example of CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS that emerge when people are willing to look at the problems HONESTLY.

Another example is that people who view IQ as genetic have concern and compassion for the welfare of the less gifted. Bushes and Kennedys are quite comfortable to say that anything not requiring an advanced Ivy League degree is "jobs Americans won't do," while race realists usually have some concern about whether opportunities remain for the less gifted (of whatever race) to find gainful employment.

[Marc]

K,

There's some more good discussion about the breast feeding/IQ study and the implications for the black-white IQ gap over at GNXP and future pundit. Take a gander.

[Dennis Mangan]

When I first began blogging, race and intelligence was a topic I feared to write about, because I was afraid of being branded a racist.

Why? You write under a pseudonym.

[brazil84]

"This is one example of CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS that emerge when people are willing to look at the problems HONESTLY."

I agree. Heck, it may be possible to improve on mother nature and raise blacks up in IQ to the level of whites. This would solve a lot of problems in America. But it won't happen if we don't look at the problem honestly first.

[JewishAtheist]

Congrats on the link! They mentioned me once a few months back, but without a link and obliquely, talking about blogs of skeptical Orthodox Jews and those who left "with names like 'Jewish Atheist' and..." Bastards. ;-)

[Tony]

Has anyone mentioned the recent study suggesting that breast feeding stimulates brain development only if the infant expresses a certain genetic variant?

Yes.

FuturePundit and Gene Expression did posts on it.

And no, FADS2-C is not equally distributed among the outlier races of the Old World.

[Legal]

Not to credit or discredit any views on genetics espoused here, but you cannot deny the effects of the past on any present disparity in IQ scores between races. Slave masters systematically forbade and punished (often by death) activities of the their slaves that would today cultivate propensity to score high on IQ tests. In other words, you punish reading and writing for 300 years, and you get an obvious result. DNA trends in races cannot be absolute and inherent in that race, but are rather a product of evolution, natural or forced.

[tommy]

Not to credit or discredit any views on genetics espoused here, but you cannot deny the effects of the past on any present disparity in IQ scores between races.

Certainly we can - especially if you cannot prove such effects.

[Michael Blowhard]

Glad to see the Times doing this article, great to see them giving you a mention. Gotta love it when important discussions start to open up, no matter how many anxieties attend the event.

[tommy]

In other words, you punish reading and writing for 300 years, and you get an obvious result. DNA trends in races cannot be absolute and inherent in that race, but are rather a product of evolution, natural or forced.

I imagine that the average African-American in 1860s America was probably no less literate than the average African (and probably more so), so I cannot see how slavery could have significantly diminished African-American intelligence over what it was in the Old World. Certainly, modern sub-Saharan Africans are not renowned for their tremendous intellectual achievements.

[mgl]

Legal,

Why is it, then, that the mean IQ for sub-Saharan Africa--including many nations with no significant heritage of slavery--is 68? link

[Mencius]

Congratulations, HS. This is a real triumph.

Your argument is flawed because you rely on terms which are culturally and not scientifically defined - "race" and "intelligence." You cannot ignore the vagaries of testing IQ and defining race which can lead to certain unintended consequences. Further, Jensen's work is only one of many and your reliance on it is a great example of the availability heuristic in action - you only look for or credit evidence which supports your argument rather than throwing out all viewpoints and searching for the full context of a problem before making your conclusions. You claim to be for intellectual honesty and common sense, but really you are only confirming your own intuitions like everyone else without a true understanding of intellectual rigor. Without a precise and common understanding of the foundational terms of the argument about intelligence, race, and genetics it is immature and naive to come to any sort of broad and rigid conclusion, as you have.

[mgl]

Your argument is flawed because you rely on terms which are culturally and not scientifically defined - "race" and "intelligence." You cannot ignore the vagaries of testing IQ and defining race which can lead to certain unintended consequences.

How long, oh Lord, must we bear these stale and discredited arguments?

Further, Jensen's work is only one of many and your reliance on it is a great example of the availability heuristic in action - you only look for or credit evidence which supports your argument rather than throwing out all viewpoints and searching for the full context of a problem before making your conclusions. You claim to be for intellectual honesty and common sense, but really you are only confirming your own intuitions like everyone else without a true understanding of intellectual rigor. Without a precise and common understanding of the foundational terms of the argument about intelligence, race, and genetics it is immature and naive to come to any sort of broad and rigid conclusion, as you have.

Let's see: assertion, assertion, smokescreen, ad hominem, assertion. Did I get that right?

[tommy]

Your argument is flawed because you rely on terms which are culturally and not scientifically defined - "race" and "intelligence." You cannot ignore the vagaries of testing IQ

Steve Sailer has provided a simple, cogent definition of race as a "partially inbred extended family," and I think this is perfectly adequate.

Fools who argue that race doesn't exist because (a) every person has a unique genetic makeup and (b) there aren't always clear boundaries indicating where one race ends and another begins must also accept that all other somewhat arbitrary but meaningful distinctions don't exist:

Language doesn't exist: (a) every person has a unique set of speech patterns and vocabulary (idiolect) and (b) there are intermediate dialects between Russian and Ukrainian, Spanish and Portuguese, and between many other languages. Therefore we can not only say that 'Russian doesn't exist' and 'Spanish doesn't exist', but that 'language doesn't exist' by the logic of race deniers.

Musical genres don't exist: there can be no meaningful difference between the music of Cobain and Mozart or between Prince and Wagner according to race deniers because (a) each musician or musical group has its own unique sound and (b) there aren't always clear boundaries between musical genres. (Is Rage Against the Machine rock or rap?) Similarly, literary and cinematic genres are nonexistent as well.

I think such claims are ridiculous on their face.

[Sean]

As a member of the African American community, I can honestly say that what you've been saying about intelligence and genetics isn't racist. I won't say its correct, or that I believe it, but to imply that you're a racist for saying what you said would be wrong, and woefully irresponsible. This is obviously a very volatile subject, and there are those that may come and use this as an excuse for their bigotry. However, the findings of all these studies should be presented with an open mind, and understood that this test should not be indicative of an entire group of people.

I think it's important to remember that racism knows no boundaries, and anyone of any intelligence (although racists tend to be idiots) and of any ethnic background can be a racist.

[Peter]

Talking about race/ethnicity and its possible effects on intelligence may not be P.C., but that isn't to say that many people aren't at least curious and open-minded on the topic.

[randomizer]

>>On the intelligence question, here's what needs to be asked - if Blacks had the same emphasis on education as Whites and especially Asians, would their educational achievements and IQ test equally?

What if you've got the causation backwards? -- i.e., blacks don't have the same emphasis on education *because* their IQs are lower. In essence, you're asking a tautology: if blacks were as smart as whites and Asians, they'd be as smart as whites and Asians.

[Peter]

Best line from the Times article:

Others hope that the genetic data may overturn preconceived notions of racial superiority by, for example, showing that Africans are innately more intelligent than other groups.

Yes, and millions of people hope they'll win lotto.

[James Watson]

but that isn't to say that many people aren't at least curious and open-minded on the topic

Not enough people, evidently.

[Larry Summers]

Yeah, what he said.

[Cameron]

For many psychological traits there are genetic and environmental factors affecting development, and it's unlikely that IQ is an exception. Both sides of this debate are going to have to accept that genetic and environmental factors are contributing. However, to what extent they are affecting various races is still under scrutiny, and most people debating the issue are engaging in highly-speculative behavior by taking sides. There exists a plethora of evidence on both sides of the debate, most of it based on weak correlations, logical fallacies, and biased experimentation. However, to write off genetics as a cause because it is inconvenient, or environment for theoretical reasons is fallacious. It is obvious that both factors are contributing, AND TO WHAT EXTENT WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE. Until we know what kind of a role genetics play, the debate over race and genetics is a useless one, and will derive no definitive conclusions.

[Al Gore]

Until we know what kind of a role genetics play, the debate over race and genetics is a useless one, and will derive no definitive conclusions.

That's like saying that until we know the extent to which man-made causes and nature-made causes are known, the debate over global warming is a useless one, and will derive no definitive conclusions.

Baloney.

[Gil]

I beg to differ randomizer. I'll add my two cents that DML didn't pose a tautological argument. A few questions I have (some of which I think I have already posed):

(a) What do you mean by 'race' exactly? People of the same skin tone despite different nationalities and environments? Never mind whites have hated other whites and regarded those other whites as inevitably inferior (such as Irish people). Similarly aren't people who describe themselves as 'Anglo-' or 'Saxon' are the descendants of Germanic people? The same people who the Romans regarded as barbarians and innately inferior?

(b) What do you mean by intelligent? The ability to be really good at maths? Be really good at making money? Having the most female sexual partners? The ability to invent and design hi-tech devices (which would include very very few people)?

(c) At what point did whites (or Asians for that matter) become 'intelligent'. White people spent thousands of years as primitive tribal humans just like sub-Saharan folk. What caused whites to become 'enlightened'? Why can't other peoples become 'enlightened' then?

(d) Why not blame cultural values? If a society rewards violent aggressive men and beats up and kills nerdy smart men then such a society will get a reinforcing genetic shift toward aggressive genes and less genes towards intelligence. But when a society starts to see intelligence as more beneficial than aggression does this too become self-fulfilling and allows a genetic shift towards being smarter?

(e) Who knows? Maybe the other side of the argument is tautological as well. If a certain group of people are considered inferior and are only allowed to do the donkey work for the enlightened elite then there'd be no incentive for those people to have no smart children nor aspire to learning. After all, the Spartan would have regarded the Helots as invariably inferior yet they had the Krypteria to make sure the population stayed inferior.

[Hujuty]

Thanks for the comment, Gil. Half Sigma may be overeducated, but his thought on this issue is radically insufficient. As for Tommy, these arguments have not been discredited who understands what a complex set of questions this issue requires addressing.

Many Native American children who grow up speaking English often fail tests of English so badly that they are put into classes where they learn English as a foreign language. Why? Because they are profoundly less intelligent than white folks? Not necessarily–it is most likely because they come from social environments where people simply tend to speak much less than we do, and use fewer words when they do so—to a degree that we would find difficult to comprehend.

We take our ideas of intelligence for granted in part because we take modernity and our own culture for granted. People who are philosophically tone deaf are unlikely to understand the complexity of the issues at stake in this debate.

[Hujuty]

Also, the average white scored higher on the Stanford-Binet in 1978 than 82 percent of whites who took the test in 1932. What to make of this? I guess the egalitarian theory is so false that the same race isn't even equal to itself!

There is much science on the side of Half Sigma, but much that is not. And again, science itself has to be put into a certain context. The problem is that science people too rarely understand this.

[Cameron]

That's like saying that until we know the extent to which man-made causes and nature-made causes are known, the debate over global warming is a useless one, and will derive no definitive conclusions.

Most debates over global warming are useless. They are simply regurgitations of already existing evidence as is the debate over race and IQ. Until more research is done, no one will be able to advance either side of the argument because there is no new knowledge. Simply bickering back and forth about what you think does little for scientific inquiry and advancement.

[SFG]

There is much science on the side of Half Sigma, but much that is not. And again, science itself has to be put into a certain context. The problem is that science people too rarely understand this.
There is some truth to that. I've stated before that I think the jury's still out on the genetic component of IQ differences: we haven't even found all the genes yet. What is obviously false is the hardcore position that there are NO differences between races, and thus that the CNS is immune from evolution. 'Essentialism' is makin' a comeback, folks.

What I find amusing is that sociologists and psychologists like to believe biology doesn't exist. What did Durkheim say? The causes of the social sciences are to be found within the social sciences? No, Emile, you're wrong. We're biological beings with biological drives.

Radically insufficient?
We take our ideas of intelligence for granted in part because we take modernity and our own culture for granted. People who are philosophically tone deaf are unlikely to understand the complexity of the issues at stake in this debate.
Ah, my friend, we are talking about success within our Western culture here. Sure Aborigines may be better at surviving in the Australian desert, but we're talking about making money in 21st-century America here. (By which social skills are a lot more important than IQ, may I add.)

It would be a lot easier if you just up and said you were worried about these ideas being used as ammunition by conservatives to strike down social programs for the poor. There are liberals on here, and some of us might even agree with you. ;)

[tommy]

Similarly aren't people who describe themselves as 'Anglo-' or 'Saxon' are the descendants of Germanic people? The same people who the Romans regarded as barbarians and innately inferior?

The funny thing is that once certain German tribes were admitted into the Roman Empire (both to minimize their predations and to employ as low-level soldiers against hostile Germans and other outliers) they rapidly rose in the Roman military hierarchy. Toward the end of the Western Roman Empire, German generals largely controlled the military and the political fate of the Empire itself. This suggests that while Northern Europe may not have been the greatest place to launch an advanced civilization, the inhabitants probably weren't too stupid. The Gauls also rapidly assimilated into the mainstream of Roman life with little difficulty. By contrast, black and Hispanic Americans lag behind after multiple generations with no end in sight.

Many Native American children who grow up speaking English often fail tests of English so badly that they are put into classes where they learn English as a foreign language. Why? Because they are profoundly less intelligent than white folks? Not necessarily–it is most likely because they come from social environments where people simply tend to speak much less than we do, and use fewer words when they do so—to a degree that we would find difficult to comprehend.

And yet somehow the Chinese manage fine...

[SFG]

Also, the average white scored higher on the Stanford-Binet in 1978 than 82 percent of whites who took the test in 1932. What to make of this? I guess the egalitarian theory is so false that the same race isn't even equal to itself!
Of course not, you're dealing with groups of people at different time periods.

Come on boys, we can take the NYT visitors! HS! Peter! tommy! DML! To the barricades!

[Gil]

What a coincidence tommy! When North Africans joined the Roman Empire they too rose through the ranks such that there a few generals, popes and the short-lived African-Roman Severan dynasty. :o

[Dan Morgan]

This NYT's article implies that open discussions about the racial IQ gap has been occurring at the "mainstream blogs". This is completely untrue. The blogs that discuss these matters openly are shunned by the high-traffic blogs. The high-traffic bloggers, liberal, conservative, and libertarian alike, simply don't want to risk being tainted by discussing issues surrounding the IQ gap.

High-traffic conservative bloggers run from the issue. And high-traffic lefty blogs only mention the issue to call others racist and to enforce the taboo against discussing the IQ gap with an open mind.

How many high-traffic mainstream blogs ever link to blogs like Half Sigma, Steve Sailer, GeneExpression, or Parapundit? Indeed, these blogs exist as an alternative to the mainstream blogs!

[tommy]

When North Africans joined the Roman Empire they too rose through the ranks such that there a few generals

Certainly, there were a few prominent North Africans, but the the Germanicization of the generalship of the Roman Empire in its final decades was unprecedented.

short-lived African-Roman Severan dynasty

Can you clarify? From what I understand, the Severan dynasty derived largely from the Syrian aristocracy, not Berbers.

[tommy]

Actually, it appears that Severus himself was of Berber extraction. The latter Severans appears to be of mostly Syrian extraction.

[David Alexander]

So why do you think your neighbors will?

Because I suspect under those fake smiles and nice words, the heart of a bitter racist lurks in every man and woman that I meet.

As I've pointed out to others, when you're black, you have a different viewpoint on the topic because this issue affects me directly. For the rest of you irregardless of your viewpoints, it's strictly an academic debate about black people. In contrast, for me, it effectively does point out that my people per advanced scientific are broken and that as a group we lag behind whites and Asians.

I've always felt that if this type of research is publicized, it will simply embolden the racists, and convince others of the inferiority of blacks vis à vis the other races. When you create the myth that all races are equal, it's way of building the argument against discrimination on the idea that mistreating a group is unfair and wrong, and that denying them privileges is unfair because they too have the ability to make the use of such privileges. With the knowledge about different IQ averages about races being publicized, it actually makes the idea of people being equal regardless of race much harder to maintain. While you have two groups who are relatively intelligent and well skilled, there's one group who seems to be incapable of living in modern societies like the other two racial groups. It supports the idea that because black people have a lower average IQ, it means that they're not deserving of the privileges that whites and Asians have.

Some have pointed out that due to the structure of the bell curve, there are obviously some black people who are more intelligent than the average white person. Yes, that is true, but it’s certainly not enough to prevent the stereotypes of the broken, lazy, ghetto black person from permeating the mind of the average white or Asian person. It’s different when you have to live as a high IQ black when everybody presumes that you’re stupid, incompetent, and unqualified, or people presume when you traverse their neighbourhood that you’re going to rape, rob, steal, or commit some other criminal act. While the rest of you can drive thru any part of the country sans problems, I get to sit here in my room and wonder about paranoid thoughts wondering if somebody in some small town store off the Interstate will spit in my burger because I’m black, or if some bored local cop decides that my speeding violation is an invitation to arrest me for some unsolved local crimes, or if some cop will plant some evidence against me. While you, as whites, can visit any part of the world without problems (with exceptions for the Middle East), I may be treated as a virtual pariah wherever I go once they see my skin colour. Just as an example, I’d love to see Moscow and St. Petersburg, but not at the risk of getting my head bashed in by locals, nor can I visit East Asia without wondering if the locals will fear me.

Of course, some have argued that blacks have skills in athletics and music that whites and Asians don’t have, but I view such statements as a cop out. The problem is that due to the limited spots for success in those fields, most people regardless of race who enter are doomed to failure. The only true talent is IQ, and despite claims otherwise, you can never have too much of it. IQ is what delivers one from poverty and general misery, and it’s something that’s lacking in the black populations across the world. Low IQ dooms one to failure, but there’s no such thing a poor, unhealthy high IQ person.

Another example is that people who view IQ as genetic have concern and compassion for the welfare of the less gifted. Bushes and Kennedys are quite comfortable to say that anything not requiring an advanced Ivy League degree is "jobs Americans won't do," while race realists usually have some concern about whether opportunities remain for the less gifted (of whatever race) to find gainful employment.

Do you know why they’re jobs Americans won’t do? They’re jobs that Americans feel are too degrading for them to hold. That’s one of the hidden debates about Affirmative Action and IQ to a lesser extent. It reveals our secret elitism, and makes us question, do we need to plant blacks and Hispanics into white-collar jobs for us to respect them? If so, does that imply that we think lowly of those who perform blue-collar work, and what do we feel about the white blue-collar workers? Even amongst black people, there’s a certain feeling that if a white person is poor, they’re failures because they live as poorly as certain segments of the black population do.

As I’ve said before, without Affirmative Action, there is no black middle and upper class, and the majority of black workers go back into the unwanted, low paying blue collar work that is regularly denigrated and prevents them from achieving the so-called “American Dream”. The problem is that economy as currently “designed” leaves low IQ workers out of the loop, and leaves them disconnected to the rest of America. Unlike unionized, highly paid factory work, the current job opportunities for the low IQ workers leaves only jobs that have no or few benefits, and have no opportunity for advancement.

I don’t think that a country can sustain having roughly 10 to 20% of its population disconnected from any means of success, and I’d suspect that after a certain point, there will be rioting that will make the 1960s riots look pale. Interestingly, the solution of welfare, and paying these people to sit down and not work was taken and away, and in some cases, probably aided in their dysfunctional societies. Even if the illegal immigrants were to magically go away, wages would go up to attract workers, but I suspect that there’s a grey area where if Mexican labour isn’t available, then black labour is skipped for legal immigrant or white labour.

I don’t know what to say at this point anymore, it’s rather frustrating and depressing at moments to discuss the issue, and there seems to be no positive benefit for me as a black person from my humble point of view. I’m stuck struggling at answering various questions wondering about my older brother and cousin who went to college and if it’s due to IQ, or if my children (or my niece and nephews will “regress to the mean”). I question if I can ever find an attractive white woman to marry, or will be forced to deal with the unwanted female specimens of my race with their broken genetic baggage. I’m wondering if this knowledge becomes widespread, will I ever find good employment and a nice home in a nice quiet white suburb, or will I be forced to work in crappy low paying blue-collar work to live in a shitty black neighbourhood? Or maybe I should just move to Canada and start fresh there?

I’ve had this pet theory of mine that the only way to save black people in the US would be to destroy black culture. Literally raze every black neighbourhood to the ground, spread the black population amongst the white population, encourage interracial marriages and births, and count the mixed race children as white for census purposes. FCC bans on BET and shutdowns of black radio stations and other media would do well. It’s probably no different from policies designed Federal Government to turn the aboriginal population into “red-skinned whites” under the theory that acting white would be the solution to the problem of the natives. Interestingly, it’s hard to justify such actions when I cling heavily to my Caribbean background, but admittedly, it’s a tool to differentiate myself from the “inferior” native-born blacks, and play up a faux-middle class lifestyle with maids, plantations, and “successful” ancestors, and why I simply didn't fit in or click with the other black people in society.

As for those who say that various remedies on the solution are around the corner, I suspect that such technology is not coming any time soon. I’m a bit more pessimistic about the situation, and the claims of therapies being available in “ten years” sound no different than the claims of flying cars in the 1950s.

[Scott]

Also, the average white scored higher on the Stanford-Binet in 1978 than 82 percent of whites who took the test in 1932. What to make of this?

Read James Flynn's latest book. The gains are largely in areas of non-general intelligence.

General intelligence, like height, has increased only modestly over the period you mention.

[deano]

"within fifteen years I predict that a person will be able to publicly state the truth about genes and intelligence and not be cast out from polite society."

Well, browsing the internets, I see the meme "We're genetically smarter than Blacks* - it's a scientific fact." is already starting to spread...

*or the N word!

[deano]

"Fools who argue that race doesn't exist because (a) every person has a unique genetic makeup and (b) there aren't always clear boundaries indicating where one race ends and another begins must also accept that all other somewhat arbitrary but meaningful distinctions don't exist"

Why call people you disagree with on a contentious issue "Fools". What, exactly, is your IQ?

And, yes, to me it's obvious that distinctions are arbitary and "made up" by society to help us classify and communicate.

Is Jazz like Punk? Well, no. But...well,yes, it's all just sound waves/vibrations picked up by zillions of hairs in the ear at end of the day, isn't it?

It's possible to hear Dance music and be totally unsure what category it fits in: Hard House, Trance, Techno, Tech-House, Hard Trance...at which point we seek "guidance" and "clarification" from a recognised "authority".

Place "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley into a classification.

"Gothic-horror!" I hear you cry.

Well, how about "Modern Fiction", "Classic fiction" (depending on your understanding of the the age of the universe). "Horror" "Mild Horror" "Social Commentary "Womens literature" etc etc etc etc.

"Gothic Horror" seems more and more arbitrary and meaningless the more one ponders...

[Gil]

hmmm . . . :(

[Mike]

And, yes, to me it's obvious that distinctions are arbitary and "made up" by society to help us classify and communicate.

Yeah, tommy. I get my family confused with my neighbor's family ALL THE TIME.

It's so embarrassing. Just the other day, I found my self in my neighbor's shower (and boy was she surprised!)

Last Tuesday, I couldn't distinguish my sister from my cousin. IT'S ALL SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT!

And that whole thing about twilight makes it IMPOSSIBLE from be to distinguish day from night. It makes me tired to even think about it.

It's all very mysterious and post modern.

[Gannon]

"Until more research is done, no one will be able to advance either side of the argument because there is no new knowledge. Simply bickering back and forth about what you think does little for scientific inquiry and advancement."

Why don't people trust their basic cognitive skills? I don't need a study to tell me that the sky is blue, horses have four legs, teen girls are more attractive than thirtysomething women or that blacks are more primitive (less intelligent and more prone to violence).

[Ximun]

Congrats, HS. Keep up the good blogging.

[Peter]

short-lived African-Roman Severan dynasty

Can you clarify? From what I understand, the Severan dynasty derived largely from the Syrian aristocracy, not Berbers.

I'm not sure what the racial relevance of this would be. Today, at least, the Berbers tend to be quite light, generally more Caucasian-looking than neighboring Arabs. Some could probably pass for white.

[Ben Toth]

To defend the idea of racial difference on the basis of familiy difference is both amusing and revealing.

Still, the the point I wanted to make is that Half Sigma's argument is not racist but naive. The whole argument about genetic influence stands or falls by the extent to which 'IQ' is real. That's at least a questionable view and far from universally accepted - given the history if IQ how could it be anything other than socially constructed?

Correlations don't really prove anything. There's probably a correlation between 'smart people' and the poor stewardship of the world's resources, something that is increasingly recognised as dumb. So even if IQ were real it would almost certainly correlates with some pretty unattractive propensities from a human perspective.

Okay I'm back to my NYT and you back to your comfortable views.

[SFG]

Still, the the point I wanted to make is that Half Sigma's argument is not racist but naive. The whole argument about genetic influence stands or falls by the extent to which 'IQ' is real. That's at least a questionable view and far from universally accepted - given the history if IQ how could it be anything other than socially constructed?
The point is not that IQ is important in and of itself; it's only a marker for some quality which is important to succeed in modern life. Keep in mind that too much is bad too (though not as bad as too little). It certainly doesn't make you a better person.

Correlations don't really prove anything. There's probably a correlation between 'smart people' and the poor stewardship of the world's resources, something that is increasingly recognised as dumb. So even if IQ were real it would almost certainly correlates with some pretty unattractive propensities from a human perspective.
Well, it correlates with success to some degree (though again very, very smart people are less successful). I doubt that having stupider CEOs and presidents would get us anywhere; if anything they'd despoil the environment even more quickly. The old WASP elite at least had noblesse oblige, after all; it's New England you see at the head of the liberal pack.

I think what the people on this blog are trying to argue is that IQ reflects intelligence (albeit not perfectly), and that intelligence is genetic and important for success (representing a necessary but not sufficient condition).

Okay I'm back to my NYT and you back to your comfortable views.
If you like. Or you could stick around to rebutt us. It's why the Internet is fun. ;)

[SFG]

Still, the the point I wanted to make is that Half Sigma's argument is not racist but naive. The whole argument about genetic influence stands or falls by the extent to which 'IQ' is real. That's at least a questionable view and far from universally accepted - given the history if IQ how could it be anything other than socially constructed?
The point is not that IQ is important in and of itself; it's only a marker for some quality which is important to succeed in modern life. Keep in mind that too much is bad too (though not as bad as too little). It certainly doesn't make you a better person.

Correlations don't really prove anything. There's probably a correlation between 'smart people' and the poor stewardship of the world's resources, something that is increasingly recognised as dumb. So even if IQ were real it would almost certainly correlates with some pretty unattractive propensities from a human perspective.
Well, it correlates with success to some degree (though again very, very smart people are less successful). I doubt that having stupider CEOs and presidents would get us anywhere; if anything they'd despoil the environment even more quickly. The old WASP elite at least had noblesse oblige, after all; it's New England you see at the head of the liberal pack.

I think what the people on this blog are trying to argue is that IQ reflects intelligence (albeit not perfectly), and that intelligence is genetic and important for success (representing a necessary but not sufficient condition).

Okay I'm back to my NYT and you back to your comfortable views.
If you like. Or you could stick around to rebutt us. It's why the Internet is fun. ;)

[Timbo]

To me, the real issue is, "Should society hold an unrebuttable presumption that all races are equally intelligent." There are a lot of good reasons to form a presumption of this nature, first of which is maintaining peaceful relations among the races. Perhaps talk of racial differences could lead to a race war, damaging everybody. Second, perhaps if it were acknowledged that it is within the realm of scientific possibility that one race was by and large, taken in generalized form, not affecting our views on any particular individual, less intelligent, we would end up treating members of that race in a very cruel manner, perhaps involving mass killings, enslavement and other terrible actions.

My thought is that we are safer against these terrible eventual outcomes if we have an unfettered search for truth. It is not truth that drove the Nazis, but falsehood. Truth may be painful, and it may turn out that it is not what we would have it be. But if we base our actions on factual falsehood, we are far more likely to enter into moral falsehood as well. After all, the very suppression of truth is a moral falsehood, even if entered upon under a belief that it serves the greater good of society. I think that at this point we can say that the following statement is true:

It is within the realm of scientific possibility that there is a correlation between genetic traits that affect human appearance and lead us to designate an individual as belonging to one or another of the commonly recognized races of man and traits that affect human mental abilities.

That is true. Let us deal with it in a compassionate and responsible manner. All of us.

Okay I'm back to my NYT and you back to your comfortable views.

Ah, some irony to start the morning! How refreshing.

David Alexander,

A very powerful and moving piece. Thank you. You are correct that for most of us, this is an academic and policy issue, but not an immediately personal one, as it is for you. I (and I suspect the great majority here) approach people as individuals, rather than members of race 'X', but I understand with great regret that you can't count on this out in the wider world.

I am not a US resident, so my experience is limited, but is it true that much of the current dissolution of the black community can be traced back to the welfare and urban-planning reforms of the 1960s? Before that, blacks were discriminated against (and no-one wants those policies back), but my understanding is that black neighbourhoods were quite orderly and safe places, with relatively stable family structures. Is that anywhere near correct?

[Peter]

I am not a US resident, so my experience is limited, but is it true that much of the current dissolution of the black community can be traced back to the welfare and urban-planning reforms of the 1960s? Before that, blacks were discriminated against (and no-one wants those policies back), but my understanding is that black neighbourhoods were quite orderly and safe places, with relatively stable family structures. Is that anywhere near correct?

It's probably more accurate to say that before the 1960's the troubles in black neighborhoods got little or no outside attention. In other words, it's not that the neighborhoods weren't as troubled as they are today, though some may have been slightly more stable, it's that white America couldn't have cared less.

One other thing to note is that prior to the 1960's a higher percentage of blacks lived in rural or small-town Southern communities rather than in urban black neighborhoods.

[mgl]

Timbo,

Perhaps society should hold the unrebuttable presumption that individuals are born with widely differing cognitive and physical abilities, and shape policies to direct each person to their most productive and satisfying destiny.

After all, the converse view--that all humans are equally capable, that all differences are products of environment alone, and that you can achieve a better society by shaping the human environment in just the right way--has led to the most horrifying bloodbaths of innocents in history, with tens or hundreds of millions of dead.

So you see, two can play at that game. The radical egalitarian worldview is much more dangerous than the radical racialist worldview, especially since society is well-inoculated against the latter and barely so against the former (and on that note: Welcome, NYT readers!).

[Roy]

DA,

I think your worries are overblown, assuming affirmative-action is eliminated that is. At that point, when a white kid at MIT sees a black kid in his class, he'll know the black kid belongs there since he had to meet the same standards.

In your case, people would no longer have a reason to assume that you got to where you are by meeting lower standards that white/asians.

[Timbo]

But, B. Gregson, are you not doing even worse. With very little knowledge of the people making the statements you are absolutely condemning them. How much do you know about Arthur Jensen and his work?? Should you perhaps not learn more, before condemning him??

[Marc]

The only people who are stupid enough to make grand statements about vast, nebulous subjects like "intelligence" and then eagerly leap with it over to the subject of race -- are racists. Wake up an smell yourself, friend.

Dude, if you actually read the scientific literature, the subject of general intelligence isn't really that vast or nebulous.

And it isn't only racists who are interested in the causes of what is arguably the most significant sociological issue of our time (black underachievement).

I understand that knee-jerk condemnation of your moral inferiors makes you feel real good about yourself, but you might want to take a deep breath and actually read what's out there before leaping to judge.

[tommy]

It's probably more accurate to say that before the 1960's the troubles in black neighborhoods got little or no outside attention. In other words, it's not that the neighborhoods weren't as troubled as they are today, though some may have been slightly more stable, it's that white America couldn't have cared less

My understanding is that there was a dramatic rise in black crime in the 1960s. While some might argue that certain forms of criminality could have been neglected, I would assume murder rates would give us a good overall indication.

[mgl]

At the very least, I'd expect the B. Gregsons of this thread to go read the Gene Expression post I linked to earlier (and which Half Sigma linked to here). That, and the 170-odd comments to that thread, in which a bunch of very bright people try to blow Jason Malloy's post out of the water, and (imo) fail.

If they were genuinely interested in the actual data and arguments, they could go further and read Brand, Jensen, Eysenck or even Pinker, for all his timidity on the question. They might even try to open their minds wide enough to read Rushton, who's been been the target of a wildly successful smearing and demonizing campaign in the media.

Then, perhaps they could come back here and actually make some cogent arguments.

But apparently they have no such interest. Instead, we get the same tired old assertions:

- There's no such thing as intelligence;
- If there is such a thing, it can't be defined;
- There's no such thing as race;
- IQ tests are culturally biased;
- Historical legacies such as slavery exert a downward bias on black results;
- Environment in general is by far the dominant determinant of IQ;
- Uh, except when black adoptees are raised in wealthy white household. THEN environment doesn't matter;
- Acceptance of IQ differences will lead to a race war or back to slavery, so we should wallow in happy ignorance,

..and so on. Each time, stated as if the writer is thinking Aha! I bet they've never considered this!

As if researchers into intelligence hadn't spent decades designing tests and statistical processes to answer these very objections (which are VERY OLD). As if these arguments hadn't been answered thousands of times.

Look, the literature is clear. Deal with it.

[mgl]

But if Jensen, too, is suggesting that scientists "know" that environmental factors override genetic ones -- especially in relation to "intelligence", which is one of the most poorly defined and ultimately unscientific attributes that you can pretend to systematically assign to individuals -- what more do I need to know?

Oh. I see.

I have yet to hear an argument against my assertion...

Assertions require supporting data to qualify as an argument. Your onus.

...and who make the truly insane claim that we "know" that environmental factors are canceled by genetic ones...

Assertion again, spiced with some ad hom. Who makes this claim?

If you are invested in coming to a conclusion about the relationship between "intelligence" and race -- that, to me, is a clear and unambiguous sign of racism.

Perhaps it would be, if you'd managed to show that such investment exists. Instead, all you've done is namecall. In its essentials, your extended argument boils down to the following:

"My mind is made up. Don't bother arguing with me because I have already decided any counter-arguments are ipso facto racist. In fact, I'm just posting because I like to see my name on the screen. B. Gregson!"

[Marc]

B says,

I couldn't have made my point better myself. You find the most compelling social question of our time to be "black underachievement" -- which presumably has nothing to do with the global apartheid of colonialism and the stripping of all resources from slaves and ex-slaves in the U.S., creating a legacy of poverty [which, as "libertarians" don't seem to understand, is inherited just as wealth is], and whose systematic operation was fully in effect a mere 2 generations ago, as long as we ignore what we know about lending and hiring practices that continue today, etc., etc. -- it is this issue that, as you admit, has *caused* you to reach out for an answer in some sweeping claim about "intelligence" and race.

B, I have no problem discussing what effects environment or history has had on current levels of black achievement. If you or someone wants to argue that the legacy of slavery, and not genetics, is responsible for the black white IQ gap, I will certainly listen (and have listened in the past) with an open mind. I am not skeptical of these claims because I *want* blacks to have lower IQs - what psychologically healthy person would want that? I am skeptical because they don't seem to fit the data. For example, if past oppression is a predictor of current performance, why do Jews and the Chinese - who have a history of being treated like crap in Europe and the U.S, respectively and who, in the latter case, were also subjected to colonization - do better than their white peers? If slavery and Jim Crowe are to blame for current black underachievement in the States, why do the children of Africans who freely emmigrated to Great Britain score 15 points lower on IQ tests than the white natives?

I'm interested in hearing your answers to these questions, but I must insist that you stop attributing motives to me (hatred of blacks) that I plain don't have.

[John M]

As a graduate of UC Berkeley who studied genetics and anthropology, I can tell you this much about Jensen: He gets flack because he, like authors of the Bell Curve and other pseudoscience, draw broad conclusions from incomplete and noncontextual data. To ignore the inherent biases in IQ tests, as well as environment, nutrition, and culture, in such matters is the mark of an unscientific mind attempting to prove a preconcieved conclusion with fragmentary evidence. You can whine about left-wing censure all you want, but your self-described "mathematical mind" is answering an equation without knowing its mode or parameters. When scientists do that, they get fired. When blogging software engineers do that, they get a lot of applause from racists trying to justify flawed ideologies.

[Marc]

To ignore the inherent biases in IQ tests, as well as environment, nutrition, and culture, in such matters is the mark of an unscientific mind attempting to prove a preconcieved conclusion with fragmentary evidence.

Please provide evidence that there are inherent biases in IQ tests which cause whites to score higher than blacks, Asians to score higher than whites, and Jews to score higher than Asians.

Please provide evidence that blacks and Asians raised in a white environment/culture have the same adult IQs as whites raised in a white environment/culture.

As for your assertion that people like Watson and the authors of the Bell Curve ignore the effects of nutrition, may I suggest actually reading the Bell Curve, particularly the section beginning on page 391 of the hardcover version entitled, "Nutrition," which discusses the scientific evidence for and against the theory that malnutrition stunts IQ.

[mgl]

I'm sorry, but this statement alone is enough to brand you as a charlatan.

Namecalling again. Grow up.

Are you actually asking intelligent, informed people to listen to you when you point to a bunch of books and declare (with a straight face) that the debate about history/environment vs. DNA is over?

I provided references so that intelligent, informed people could read for themselves, and perhaps avoid looking silly. I note once more that you have provided no support whatsoever for any of your assertions. As for the second, please indicate where I made such a sweeping claim.

...and yet you keep pretending it is...

I did? Where?

Are you actually asking people to believe that the insanely complicated question of how genetic disposition is expressed in broad human behaviors and reactions -- the basic question whose answer is in such infancy as to be pre-natal -- has been "answered" in such a way that would allow us to make grand statements about "intelligence" and race?

No. I'm asking people to read beyond the NYT so they won't make silly and facile claims that have been answered many thousands of times over.

As for my actual views, as opposed to your cartoon thereof: yes, it's clear that individuals differ greatly in their cognitive abilities. Both heredity and environment play significant roles. Researchers have gone to tremendous efforts over several decades to design methods of measuring cognitive abilities that are culturally unbiased, and statistical tests that take environmental influences into account. After all this, there remain substantial gaps in average IQ between racial groups. (Because of the normal distribution, we find members of all racial groups at all IQ levels.) These gaps appear to be to a great degree independent of environment: groups that have little experience of slavery or colonization score very similarly to those that have. Meanwhile, other groups that have recently experienced severe discrimination and oppression score very highly.

I make no AGW-type claims about the science being settled now and for all time, and you'll note that I don't use the word "consensus". Nevertheless, I believe your time would be better spent actually looking at the data rather than jumping in and throwing insults around.

I think we've exhausted our back-and-forth here: you're not interested in genuine argument, simply in trying to declare the debate off-limits. All the best.

[Robert Hume]

It is incorrect to say that without affirmative action there would be no black middle class.

Steve Sailer has pointed out that in the US there are 6 million blacks with IQ's above that of the average white. If the average white becomes middle class, so will many blacks. And that is happening.

The problem comes when you require the average black to be as successful as the average white.

The solution to the problem is to make unskilled labor scarce so that unskilled labor makes a high wage. This could be done by severely restricting immigration of the unskilled. Then we would return to the relative income equality of the 40's 50's and 60's.

Also, once we focus on maximum income equality and opportunity for all, we can stop trying to force equality for all groups and focus on the individual, as is appropriate.

And remember that equality before the law and in the eye of God is what is true.

Not to jump back in with B Gregson, but I'd just like to tease out some of the implications of the environmental-historical argument:

The argument is that blacks--almost alone among racial groupings--are uniquely unable to overcome the legacy of historical treatment such as slavery and colonization.

Meanwhile, East Asians have endured such ill-treatment as coolie labor, internment during WWII, foreign occupation, severe general discrimination until quite recently, and (in some of their native countries) the oppressive horrors of marxist slave states.

Jews were also discriminated against in Western countries until quite recently, and endured the genocidal oppression of fascist Europe, not to mention the Soviets.

Yet both groups seem relatively cognitively unaffected by these terrible events, and score (on average) very highly on tests of cognitive ability.

(And who would be willing to bet against North Koreans repeating the astonishing success of their southern brethren, once that country is freed from its shackles?)

But--for some reason--blacks living in one of the freest countries on earth cannot possibly overcome the legacy of their own ill-treatment?

Please. If any argument here is racist, it's that one.

[Roy]

Could either B Gregson or John M (or anyone who disagrees with HS) point out any factual inaccuracies with the Jason Malloy post that MGL referenced, and was the basis of much of this discussion.

Malloy's post covers basically every critique you've offered. So unless you can offer some evidence as to why his post is wrong, your assertions aren't going to be very convincing.

Seriously, if you really want to change people's minds, that's how you could accomplish it.

[SFG]

Usually the oppression has to end before they start doing well, though. Asian Americans didn't start doing well in school until the 80s. As for enduring genocidal persecution, well, the Jews who didn't flee literally went up in smoke. I would not rule out persistent negative cultural factors impacting black people's success.

[Roy]

SFG,

Can you point to a single piece of evidence showing that Asian GPA or SAT scores were below the white average at some point in the past?

Conversely, could you show some proof that College admission offices have been discriminating against Blacks at any point in the last quarter century?

Maybe your not aware, but every time a State passes an initiative to prohibit preferences for minorities, its these State's Universities that fight the hardest to keep the minority preferences intact.

[tommy]

If you're unfamiliar with the literature (and it appears many of the naysayers here are), then you might want to start here:

Seligman "A Question of Intelligence"
Herstein and Murray "The Bell Curve"
Jensen "The g Factor"
Lynn "Race Differences in Intelligence"
Lynn and Vanhanen "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"

[K]

David Alexander,

First, Derbyshire somewhere quotes research that people are more likely to go against stereotypes than they really should. This was before the Duke Lacrosse fiasco showed once again the glee that both whites and blacks take in discovering the potential Great White Defendant, and most people I know are very happy to find a truly intelligent black person. We even liked OJ (especially as a 3-piece suited businessman-on-the-move for Hertz) until it was impossible to ignore his, uh, murder problem.

Your writing is some of the most intelligent in this post, and I hope you find a way to use your talents productively. White people are not so racist that they refuse to buy Gladwell's books, despite the fallacies. (hint: If you are really so paranoid about racism, maybe you could find a career where your ethnicity is irrelevant? "On the Internet, nobody knows you're black?")

there's one group who seems to be incapable of living in modern societies like the other two racial groups

The point is that nobody’s really fooled anyway. Even the “diversity” enthusiasts pay bazillions to buy a house in a “good [translation: WHITE] school district.”

It supports the idea that because black people have a lower average IQ, it means that they're not deserving of the privileges that whites and Asians have.
I don’t like the word “privilege.” That implies that stuff is just handed to whites and Asians. There is some privilege (for instance, growing up in a social class that makes attending medical school look like a reasonable and normative choice), but “Opportunity” seems more appropriate most of the time. White guys compete extremely harshly against each other, and the College Board computers don't give us free points on our SAT for being named "Brad." I don’t think you’ll see many people saying “this research means blacks should not be allowed to go to college,” and to do so would require a complete misunderstanding of the data (and of group vs individual differences).

When you create the myth that all races are equal, it's way of building the argument against discrimination on the idea that mistreating a group is unfair and wrong

Perhaps my Christian upbringing is showing here, but I don’t think “equal” value as people depends on equal ability.

As I’ve said before, without Affirmative Action, there is no black middle and upper class

I disagree. I it might be a small group, but I don’t really think AA is as successful as you might think: Black students get AA to get into law school, and then have abysmal rates at passing the bar. In contrast, Thomas Sowell says that he and other blacks at Harvard in the 1950’s got along very well: everybody knew they BELONGED there and accepted them accordingly.

I don’t think that a country can sustain having roughly 10 to 20% of its population disconnected from any means of success,

I agree, but maybe you’re right and my “practical compassion” is unusual.

[David Alexander]

Steve Sailer has pointed out that in the US there are 6 million blacks with IQ's above that of the average white. If the average white becomes middle class, so will many blacks. And that is happening.

That's still to low given that only means that 15% of the black population meets that requirement. When the large majority of your ethnic background are of low intelligence, people will treat you as if you're a member of that 85%. It perpetuates the idea of a servant class of blacks who are too stupid to deserve anything good.

The solution to the problem is to make unskilled labor scarce so that unskilled labor makes a high wage. This could be done by severely restricting immigration of the unskilled. Then we would return to the relative income equality of the 40's 50's and 60's.

The problem is that when you push up the cost of labour, employers have a tendency to overlook (lazy) black labour for its higher IQ white counterpart. When $8/hr buys low IQ Mexican work, why pay $15/hr for low IQ black labour, when you can pay $20/hr and get high IQ, competant white labour instead?

focus on the individual, as is appropriate.

That's the problem. It's hard to seperate the individual from his group. Even if you've lucked out and you're one of the 6 million blacks with higher than white average IQs, then how does one get the white population to determine that you're "not like the others". White people will continue to presume that you're an idiot, and many will choose to have nothing to do with you. For those of us who like being around white people, this process is already frustrating, and certainly without Affirmative-Action and with the knowledge of black genetic inferiority, it certainly makes it much harder for somebody like me, and dumps us into being stuck around the low IQ blacks that a few of us would prefer to have nothing to do with.

And remember that equality before the law and in the eye of God is what is true.

That's what frustrates me as a Catholic. One wonders if God would really leave black people with low IQ and deny us the ability to be as smart as everybody else and to compete in the modern world?

My understanding is that there was a dramatic rise in black crime in the 1960s. While some might argue that certain forms of criminality could have been neglected, I would assume murder rates would give us a good overall indication.

I've read some anecdotal stuff about how Harlem and similar black communities that existed in pre-1964 America were relatively safer than afterwards. Some contend that black unity was much stronger, especially since wha constituted the black middle class at the time was living with the black poor, and the presence of the middle class induced the poor to behave. IIRC, I also remember reading that illegitamcy rates for blacks were also lower as well.

Some have blamed the welfare for implosion of the black community, but one of my pet hypothesis about this situation is based on the Vietnam War. In my former neighbourhood, there was a man who was a former Vietnam War draftee who subsequently became a drug addict and alcoholic. His mother informed us that he would have gone to college, but was drafted to fight, and he returned in his broken state. I'd imagine that a good number of other black men returned from the war that way as well, and the problems would have been exacerbated with the decline of the economy in the early 1970s.

Interestingly, I'd like to see when murders spiked upwards in the black community. If it's in the '80s, one could suspect the crack epidemic and drug dealing would have had an immense role to play.

BTW, as a side point, after speaking with older family members from Haiti, one gets the idea that Haiti was relatively peaceful and quiet with very little crime, even when the regimes were less oppressive. It seems that the rise in murder in Haiti has become connected with drug trade, and most of the murders occur in Port-au-Prince, the largest city in the country (and only port out of the country) while the rural country side where a plurality of Haitians live is still relatively safe and peaceful. I question if Jamaica's high murder rate is connected with the drug trade as well.

[APH]

David Alexander: I don't like your doomsday pessimism; I think it is unwarranted and it sounds like paranoia has consumed your life. On the most practical level, it is a cultural deficiency - not an IQ one - that creates resentment and suspicion of blacks in 2007 America. Surely intelligence affects culture in many ways, but there is a tremendous amount of potential in black America that gets unrealized because of culture. For your sake, I hope you enter politics (I realize you might not have the ego and narcissism to pull this off) and run on a platform of reforming black culture.

[K]

As to the decline of black communities, check out the book "Divided Highways." Apparently one can map, to a first approximation, where thriving black communities ~used to be~ by looking for neighborhoods that were demolished to build Interstate highways.

[anthony]

David Alexander's comments should be widely distributed. They are perhaps the best description of the dilemma faced by highly intelligent black people that I've ever read. How many high IQ blacks were denied the right to live up to their potential over the centuries because so-called well-meaning whites have found "scientific" evidence of intellectual inferority? Think of the eugenics studies of the past -- they were also promoted as "indisputable" evidence of the superiority of whites. Couching the DNA debate in terms like "race realism" is just as odious. Once again we're faced with a future where whites will use this "evidence" as justification for unequal treatment.

You cannot know the daily pain of never getting the benefit of the doubt, nor the insult of watching (white) people express surprise that a black man can employ reason and logic.

With this evidence, are we not setting up a future where people will be judged on racial pedigree, like dogs or horses. Will DNA labs shift their business models to accommodate whites eager to prove that they're "pure-bred," or to satisfy darker-skinned people desperate to prove that they've got at least a few of the desirable genetic markers. My ancestry is approximately 55 percent African and 45 percent European -- will I have to add that to my resume to prove my worth? (And for those who would ask why I identify myself as black, it's because society wouldn't have it any other way.)

The reason that many scientists shy away from these studies is not so much political correctness as the realization that none of this evidence can ever by absolute. It's that at least some of them realize that consequences on the lives of the David Alexanders of the world must be added to the equation. Some may argue that the quest for knowledge overrides any consideration of the impact on the lives of any individual. Perhaps. But the next time you're in a restaurant and all eyes zero in the one black couple being shown to their table, think about your own complicity in their discomfort.

[Peter]

But the next time you're in a restaurant and all eyes zero in the one black couple being shown to their table, think about your own complicity in their discomfort.

Why would that happen?

[K]

So the question is: Why are so many people on this board so dedicated to this particular conclusion…

Perhaps because we're sick of being BLAMED and DEMONIZED for the problems of minorities that are either genetic or self-inflicted?

"Oooh, the White Male Racist Oppressors are causing underachievement in the Black and Hispanic communities! Crucify them! Since all ethnic groups have equal abilities, but Blacks and Hispanics are underperforming, it MUST be due to racism, discrimination, and oppression by the Evil White Male Power Structure!"

I don't know about the other people, but I take no delight in the failures of blacks. And I definitely don't go around oppressing them! I was a scholarship student in engineering school with no money. Hardly any blacks even tried in engineering, but many didn't make it very far. But if they can't pass Calculus, it's not because white kids are passing them wrong answers or throwing away their homework: it's either lack of ability, lack of preparation, or lack of effort. But it's not discrimination, racism, and oppression. If your Rashad gets a 40th percentile on the SAT, it's NOT MY FAULT! And if he can't pass Calc III at Caltech, it's also not my fault: NOBODY with a 40th percentile IQ passes Calc III at Caltech; sorry.

I'm too busy trying to pay my student loans and credit cards and occasionally get a date to worry too much about oppressing anyone. I do think that K-12 education should be improved for minorities, but after that, don't blame me for other people's problems: I have enough of my own, really.

[Timbo]

B Gregson,

Your argument could have just as easily have been made by Pope Urban VII, forcing Galileo to recant his heliocentric views. "We know so very little about the planets and the sun. To us 17th century people they are points of light in the sky. Accordingly, anyone who would have the incredible effrontery to suggest that the earth revolves around the sun, in clear contradiction of the words of the psalms, must be invested with attacking Christian belief. How else could someone, simply by observing the paths of those points of light, feel that he knows so much about it to try to overturn our established notions about the organization of the Universe." If you were alive at the time, you would no doubt hold Galileo in deepest disdain.

I can speak for myself. What I said in my first post today is that it is "within the realm of scientific possibility" not that we could arrive at a firm and definite conclusion. What do you think of that?? Do you at least agree that agree with my original statement that you can find further up. And far more importantly, does that make me a racist, simply to say that a difference in intelligence (whatever that may be) between races(whatever may be meant by that term) is possible. The definitional problem works both ways. If you can't define the terms you can't really say it is impossible, either.

Perhaps you are the one who is being too definite. You admit that you have not really investigated the subject thoroughly, yet you condemn those with whom you disagree. All of your statements are conclusory.

For example:

"2) If one were truly "neutral" on this question, one would have to be content with the fact that we have a lot more to learn before we can make the staggering claim that "we know that 'intelligence' is tied to race"."

How do you know that?? Here you are in the 17th century

2) If one were truly "neutral" on the question of the heliocentric planetary system, one would have to be content with the fact that we have a lot more to learn before we can make the staggering claim that the planets revolve around the sun.

Accordingly, ahah, that Galileo must be desperate to reach that conclusion. Just to destroy the church! What a devilish fellow. Let's make him recant.

[A.H.]

I wished I would have majored in math instead of English/creative writing in college. Now that I'm pushing 70, retired, and spent my career life writing 83 print-on-demand- published novels and how-to books, I would have made an income sufficient to be independent of total financial dependence upon a spouse, if I had majored in math. Having chosen the wrong major for income-producing self-sufficiency for myself (I speak for no one else) I have ended up a poor, low-income senior citizen in a tiny, humid room. Just think. If I majored in math, I would have been a statistician retiring with pension and perks, insurance and benefits and would have been able to afford a vacation lasting more than a day.

There are so many more jobs open to women nowadays with technical degrees or degrees in applied math, such as statistics or population genetics and DNA-testing bio-informatics or forensic biology, etc....Oh, why did I choose the English major instead of the math major?

I could have been a 'contender.' Perhaps if I were breast-fed, I would have had a math major I.Q. and taught calculus II in college. Or? The possibilities are endless. As for English majors, I bet there are only jobs open for 20% of English majors, and the rest from my class of 1959 when I started college, ended up in the steno pool only to be saved by a marriage that lasts at least until retirement. What do you all think? (I've been in Mensa since 1978. So I.Q. may not have been an issue of whether I could have tackled a math major in 1959.) After reading about the shoddy reception given to Rosaland Franklin in her science-related job, I chose the English major. I would have made a higher salary with a PhD in nursing administration in those 1950s college years of mine.

A.

[mgl]

...a political agenda that yearns to arrive at a specific conclusion.

Oh, God. The irony!

[APH]

FYI to all:

There is long, but interesting, Q&A with Linda S. Gottfredson here:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2007gottfredsoninterview.pdf

I especially implore everyone to read her response betwen pages 48 and 51...

[SFG]

Not sure if A.H.'s story is intended to be true or not; if it is, it is very sad. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[K]

"goal of establishing a hierarchy of racial intelligence is not motivated by a political agenda that yearns to arrive at a specific conclusion."

You asked "why people on this board are so dedicated." I took it to mean "why are people on this board interested in the subject."

The fact that I am (as a commenter, not researcher) am personally interested for practical, applied reasons (including clarifying the reasons for disparate achievement and constructive solutions thereto) does not mean that the thousands of IQ studies that have shown different IQ across ethnic groups are invalid as a result of a coordinated conspiracy toward a foregone political end.

But maybe you're right and it is all a conspiracy:
We call ourselves the "Elders of Princeton." Since the cat's out of the bag, Hispanics actually have the highest SAT scores, followed by blacks, then whites, then Asians and Jews are dead last. But we bribe the Educational Testing Service to release false numbers to make blacks look stupid: it's a way to get "our" message in the public consciousness every year like clockwork.
And in every city in the United States, "we" have sympathetic school boards and newsrooms that falsely print that the black-dominated schools are "at risk," while the truth is that it's the suburban white schools (the ones that send 80% of their students to college many of whom become doctors and lawyers) are where graduates usually can't read their diplomas.
The Bar Association in each state is also part of "us:" blacks invariably get 100% on their first try, but we have agents mis-grading their tests.
"We" cook the UN Human Development Index too: if the African countries came out on top, that would ruin "our" theory, so we put those little Scandinavian places, that are really shitholes without stable government, passable roads, or electricity, at the top.
"We" even control the "travel" industry, too: When you get on an "international flight," you actually enter a full-motion simulator of "England," "Switzerland," "Norway," or "France," or "Rwanda" made by Disney. If "we" let people see the real thing, they'd realize that it's Europeans who no longer have electricity, and it's Africa where every city over 200,000 people is connected by maglev monorails at 300 mph.

As stupid white people, of course, "we" are too dumb to understand why anybody who even hints at "our" dogma gets fired, when we control every government, school board, college testing service, newspaper, the UN, and the travel industry.

[K]

What is the position of the gay lobbyists on this issue?

Since the early 1990's, the mainstream press has been eagerly reporting anything that might hint at The Gay Gene. Must be fun to simultaneously advocate that:
1. Homosexual attraction is largely or purely genetic

2. Variation in intelligence cannot POSSIBLY be influenced by genes and if it were influenced by genes we KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that those genes are equally distributed among all ethnic groups (unlike those which control height, skin pigmentation, and body hair)

[Fly]

APH, thanks for the link to the the Gottfredson interview. I laughed out loud when I read this:

Linda S. Gottfredson: "People often remark on the coincidence that Bob and I study twins and also have them. Bob would sometimes joke in response that we actually had triplets, but gave one away to study environmental effects. I did that once, but the fellow took me seriously and looked horrified."

[Gil]

Well I still don't get the mystical implication from the correlation that certain races have, on average, lower I.Q. Or for that matter why H.S. likes this issue so much? If people allowed to achieve their potential (or fail) on their own merits, who cares? Does H.S. have a counter where he's noting how many times the r-word is being used? Or, likewise, what is the happy I.Q. range in which people can be down-to-earth, hard-working, contributing members of society? After all, has not H.S. shown I.Q. is not a conclusive indicator of success? And, quite frankly, hasn't it been shown that many serial killers have an above-average I.Q. (Hell, Ed Kemper had an I.Q. of 136!)?

[jonas]

Who in their right mind every believed that the races were equal? DUH???

[Ilab]

It seems everybody here refer to "blacks" as one homogenous group (more or less). But aren't all African Americans a mixture of African and European genes? I am curious about this, how is IQ inherited? If African Americans have 20% white genes (say), are they 20% smarter than "real" Africans? If so, are Africans really, really dumb? Or, maybe low IQ genes are dominant, like brown eyes vs blue eyes?

Also, I have heard that there are much more genetic variation internally in Africa compared to Europeans. Africa has Pygmees and Masai, whereas Europe only has Norwegians and Greeks. Perhaps Kalahari Bushmen consider other blacks to be stupid, who just lie down and die of thirst, should they happen to enter the Kalahari desert?