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.