Half Sigma's NY Times comment

My comment at the NY Times (about the hereditability of intelligence and its impact on ability to attend college) became an editor's selection. How did that happen? Did they hire Steve Sailer to be the comment reader?

Comments

[hugh go naught]

They probably find the comment funny, not enlightening. In any case, everyone can attend college; that's what "Communications", "Interdisciplanary Studies","Womens Studies", and "Political Science" majors are for.

[Half Sigma]

Even a bogus major like "women's studies" requires reading, and no, you can't major in that if you are illiterate.

"Editor's Selection"? So that's how they shape "free speech" at the NYTimes.com site.

The proliferation of "bogus" majors like identity studies and education along with the large number of bad institutions offering them significantly drops the IQ requirement of college coursework. One that is far below the IQ of 115 which was considered typical of college students not so long ago.

I've known people who've done fine not even buying a book for easy courses. A professor at a premiere community college told me most of her English students didn't even buy the assigned book and it showed in class. She couldn't flunk them all (or anything but a small fraction) without getting in trouble - it was hopeless.

Depending on how blindly ideological a course is, how low the standardss are and how good one's short term memory is one could easily pass with a low IQ and even being functionally illiterate. Hand in a rap song or video for credit in "Evil Man Man Oppression 101" at Detroit Central Community College parroting every bit of paranoia you heard in the hood. How hard is that? You can get tenure at Harvard and wooed away to Princeton doing that sort of stuff.

You can be probably 2 SD below 115 (IQ 85) and still be able to pass with a decent short term memory. Moreover, many game around borderline illiteracy by demanding special tutors, extra time, etc. because they have learning disabilities sometimes masking lower IQs (e.g. I'm an visual or auditory learner).

[Vim]

"you can't major in that if you are illiterate"

The number of people who are illiterate has more to do with the structure of the school system, the teaching methods and cultural issues than IQ. For instance, does hispanic illiteracy have more to do with IQ or the fact that many of them have Spanish as a first language or prefer to speak Spanish relative to English.

As far as your comment to NYTimes, they continue to publish on the genetic theories of intelligence so I assume somebody there has sympathy with this line of thinking.

With regards to the research you cited in your comment, the most tiresome thing about these types of articles is there is never any proper critique. Heritability calculations are bogus. But even if heritability calculations were not bogus, the idea that IQ could possibly be 98% heritable is woefully naive. IQ's a semiarbitrary test and unless the test designer was appointed by god, I really don't see how a test designer could achieve that kind of accuracy . Not to mention one is collapsing a multidimensional trait to one dimension and yet we get 98%! of all variability in that one dimension! This is laughable. Finally, the research you cited is based on 40 Fins. It is then supposed to stand in for all humanity. It's just a huge waste of time how ridiculous these studies are.

[David Alexander]

Some people aren't born smart enough to be able to attend college. When will people realize this?

We will realize this we start seeing Jewish and Northeast Asian blue-collar employees. Otherwise, nobody will want their children to do "nigger work", and people will see the concentration of minorities (read: black people) in non-college educated fields as "bad", especially if it's low paying.

that's what "Communications", "Interdisciplanary Studies","Womens Studies", and "Political Science" majors are for.

My friend was a Communications major, and she has a decent job as a writer for a small commercial real estate magazine, so it's not that useless. In contrast, my cousin is Women's Studies and Psychology major and the only reason she has a job is due to her parents connections with a non-profit agency. She spends her free time trying to run an unprofitable Afro-centric health magazine.*

These majors are not neccessarily a wash, but IMHO, with the exception of communications and political science which is the de facto equivalent of pre-med for lawyers and those aiming for public policy related degrees.

*Yeah, I'm jealous of her and her stupid magazine, especially since I'm the Oreo, and she's the racist. I did better than her in high school and elementary school, but apparently, she did better than I did in college which exacerbates my jealousy and bitterness...

Vim

Why do you think heritability calculations are bogus? Is this just your personal opinion or do you have any data to overturn 100yrs of largely consistent research results?

Any figure of 98% for heredity is way too high. The conventional wisdom varies around 60-80%.

Whatever you mean by "semiarbitrary", IQ tests are the most accurate test to guage human outcomes like education, crime, divorce, income, etc. and the "multi-dimensional" traits they measure strongly correlate.

IQ is not a perfect predictor, but it sure is a useful guideline when dealing with unpredicatable humans. Calling them a "huge wate of time" is more ridiculous than claiming strict 98% predictive power.

[Vim]

blank:

There must be logic behind calculations. One can always get 'a number' if you are happy to get any number. I can't explain why heritability calculations don't mean anything any better than this guy:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

Basically the analysis of variance is all wrong. (Note this guy only had 40 people to measure heritability on to begin with so there would definitely be small sample size problems.)

"IQ tests are the most accurate test to guage human outcomes "

This is a gross overstatement. Even really optimistic estimates usually give mild to middling estimates of correlation ... say 0.4 or something ... almost nothing really. Look at the wikipedia article on correlation. It has a some great pictures showing how bad a pointspread with 0.4 correlation looks.

"Whatever you mean by "semiarbitrary""

The idea and structure is ad hoc and hasn't changed much since it was invented.

"Calling them a "huge wate of time""

I didn't say the IQ tests were a huge waste of time. I said the articles on studies of this sort(the one liked in HS's comment on the NYT) were a huge waste of time. EVERY time I go and look up the details, it's just ridiculous. I mean 40 people! 0.98 Correlation! Oh come on!

It's one the reasons I HATE looking up IQ studies. So boring and so much claimed. It takes so long to read them and most of the time they are ass backward.

(But I agree IQ is predictive and useful. I do believe it is measuring something real in the sense of giving reproducible results. I just don't believe its genetic. I don't think it's necessarily very predictive on an individual level but for populations it seems to give you a broad idea of socio-economic performace. It's good at diagnosing mental illness.)

David Alexander

Most Whites, Jews and Asians realize that they are born athletic enough to compete with most blacks in explosive speed sports or skill positions. They don’t blame it on anti-white racism which exists in major sports media, pro or pick-up games or the selection and training preferences. They don’t bitch and moan about being gheottized in “cracka work” positions like OL or low-paid sports like swimming and wrestling. Most non-Blacks do the best they can in a sport that they excel in and/or enjoy – it doesn’t make them any less of a “man” despite what disparaging views many Blacks have on this.

So why do Blacks, Hispanics and Liberals of all strips argue against the clear reality of genetic racial IQ differences which is even more historically scientifically established than athleticism. From my experience, Blacks would much rather be an athletic stud than an academic stud anyway so why all the bitching? Why the incessant whining and blaming others because they didn’t get a monopoly on all human excellence? It’s as stupid as it is nauseating.

Vim

I agree with you and believe any study that claims 98% heredity, even if they had 1,000 subjects, contradicts a century of intelligence research. Such research has consistently demonstrated a lower heritability in the early years (as low as 20%) and much higher heritability in adulthood (as high as 80%) even when controlling for environment as in the famous MN separated twin study (70%). A 1995 task force on intelligence by the American Psychological Assoc found intelligence 75% heredity in whites.

It is no overstatement to say IQ tests are the most accurate test to gauge a broad range of human outcomes. What other tests do you think are more predictive: personality tests, height, parental SES? Human behaviors and outcomes are notoriously difficult to predict, especially over the long term. IQ tests are the most useful tool we have. Here are some sample correlations:

0.82 SAT
0.50 grades
0.55 total years of education
0.54 entry-level job performance
0.50 middle-age peak income

(0.50-1.00 is a considered a Large correlation and very rarely found in metrics predicting human behavior or outcomes compared to 0.10-0.29 Small and 0.30-0.49 Medium)

IQ tests have to be “semi arbitrary” because we don’t yet understand all the mechanisms behind human intelligence – we can only indirectly measure it. That does not detract from it’s value to evaluate and predict. I may not know the exact mechanism at work, but I can advantageously assume it will rain soon if I see a thick mat of low-laying grey skies pouring down water in the horizon coming towards me.

You can choose to believe IQ is 0% genetic and it’s not very predictive for individuals, but you’d just be ignoring long-established scientific reality. As such, you can’t meaningfully discuss the subject with anyone, just offer opinions. Without objective and verifiable scientific facts, you might as well debate Tom Cruise about the immortality of thetans or something George Bush believes based upon his gut.

Finally, IQ is predictive for individuals on various specific outcomes. The correlation coefficient quantifies the power of each specific prediction.

[David Alexander]

Most Whites, Jews and Asians realize that they are born athletic enough to compete with most blacks in explosive speed sports or skill positions.

That's because most whites, Jews, and Asians are smart enough to realize that their chances of succeeding in any sport are slim, and they focus their efforts on something that may actually have a payoff. In contrast, for most black athletes, if they fail at their respective sports, they're pretty much doomed into low paying work.

If we follow what the current theories on IQ say, the average white athlete if he doesn't go into pro-sports will live a comfortable lifestyle. His Black counterpart will not.

Blacks would much rather be an athletic stud than an academic stud anyway so why all the bitching?

I suspect it's because the stereotypical rich black person is either an athlete or entertainer, and it reinforces those preferences amongst poor youth in the ghetto who see it as their means out. If anything, we need to go into these communinities and destroy that philosophy.

Why the incessant whining and blaming others because they didn’t get a monopoly on all human excellence?

Primarily because 2/3rds of the planet wasn't deprived of the mental tools needed to live successfully in the modern world by nature and evolution.

[Bob]

I have written a rather through summary of the heritability of intelligence. I cite independent methods of measuring heritability, all of which produce similar results. My summary was published in the journal Gift of Fire and in the journal Telicom.

http://members.cox.net/variance/pages/heritability.htm

The above was reviewed by Chris Brand and cited on his blog:

It was also linked from IQ Corner:
http://intelligencetesting.blogspot.com/

Both links were posted around September 17, 2007.

Bob

David Alexander

Educating blacks about the low probabilities of success in sports is good, but it’s not a primary cause of academic failures. If most failed black (and white) athletes are doomed to low-paying work, it primarily because they don’t have the IQ, motivation, skills, etc. that the labor market prizes – not because they are black.

Again, if black athletes don’t become brain surgeons or physicists this nothing to do with racism against skin color as liberals always whine about. It has to do with meritocracy and organizations selecting for the most capable individuals for the highest paying professions which correlates with high IQ. In fact, strong affirmative discrimination puts underrepresented minorities into careers where they are statistically guaranteed to be the worst in their fields by objective measures.

Although much fewer in number, I don’t resent black athletes or performers nor do I demand quotas to limit their numbers where they are overrepresented. In fact, if they are more talented I’ll happily help pay their multi-million dollar salaries with my patronage. So why do most blacks and liberals always scream imaginary racism and demand quotas in other areas where blacks are unambiguously shown to be less talented in general? Why do countless more qualified Whites or Asians get personally shafted to make room for some, often MUCH less qualified, other guy who just happens to have a different skin color?

I agree with you urban and poor black culture is toxic and self-destructive, but the typical successful average black in America is not the superstar athlete or entertainer. There are millions of middle-class blacks in this country that own homes, send their kids to college, etc. I agree with you urban and poor black culture is toxic and self-destructive. But again, why should my kids get shafted just because they are bright, work hard and play by the rules. Why should our government, business and universities be forced to reserve seats for the many less talented, self-destructive and irresponsible blacks and such things be effectively rewarded by such subsidies?

It’s BS victimlogy to claim 1/3 of the planet is deprived of the mental tools to successfully live in a modern world. How much mental power do you need to live in today’s world? Not much. Now if you think you have the right to become a top lawyer or doctor just because of your skin color and regardless of lacking key abilities – then yes, modern life can be difficult. The simplest and best solution is to address the fundamental root of the problem, false expectations, not try to distort the world that will never fit these false expectations anyway (because you can socially engineer away the fundamental fact that we are genetically, culturally and individually different).

There are many, many millions lower IQ people in Asia, Israel and Europe that live just fine in modern times. High or low IQ, high or low status or pay, most humans on this planet do the best they can to find work, raise families and enjoy life. Most don’t sit by and obsessively create paranoid racism fantasies to explain their failings.

[retard]

Bob, excellent post on IQ and heritability. Seems pretty thorough.

[David Alexander]

If most failed black (and white) athletes are doomed to low-paying work, it primarily because they don’t have the IQ, motivation, skills, etc. that the labor market prizes – not because they are black.

I agree with you at this point. The problem is that due to differences in average IQ amongst races, it's more likely that the average white athlete if he fails to achieve professional status will live a much more comfortable lifestyle than his black counterpart due to higher IQ. White athletes have nothing to worry about, but their black counterparts have to succeed or die.

In fact, strong affirmative discrimination puts underrepresented minorities into careers where they are statistically guaranteed to be the worst in their fields by objective measures.

Which leads to an interesting question if what you're saying is true. Is it better to be a poorly performing minority in a field with a middle class lifestyle, or some blue collar joe schmoe living as a prole? Is propping up the minority population so that they can feel "connected" to the rest of the country is a value that the republic should support is an exercise that I leave up the reader to answer on their own terms. I personally feel that it's a much better solution than having an even larger concentrated pool of poor people who are of a certain race. Maybe I'm over exagerating, but I'd suspect unless said population was exported, large organized violence by the smaller group against the larger population would make the 1960s violent riots look pathetic. I don't think it's possible for the United States to sustain itself with a large pool of poor black people within its borders.

Why should our government, business and universities be forced to reserve seats for the many less talented, self-destructive and irresponsible blacks and such things be effectively rewarded by such subsidies

Except the people who are hobbled by such self-destructive habits and irresponsibility are the least likely to benefit. The men who runs around with illegal guns, has numerous children of out wedlock with multiple women, and squander their savings on ugly jewelry don't go to college, and they certainly don't qualify for the positions that you're talking about. The competition for your children who are bright and hard working are black children who are hard-working and law-abiding as well. They *may* not be as bright, but I don't see why we shouldn't reward them for their behaviour given what they could have easily succumb to developing into.

There are millions of middle-class blacks in this country that own homes, send their kids to college, etc.

The only reason that middle class pool exists is by virtue of the same programs that you're against.

The simplest and best solution is to address the fundamental root of the problem, false expectations, not try to distort the world that will never fit these false expectations anyway

As I've stated before, as long as the disparities exist in the first place, black people will continue to question why their professionals are in smaller number in proportion to their white counterparts. Stating that they're not "smart enough" is not an answer, and reeks of the same answers given by generations of previous power brokers who deemed them too be inferior and not worthy of equal treatment. Telling to people to aspire for being janitors and Wal-Mart employees is certainly not a way to win popularity and approval, and it certain gives ammunition to the racists, Afro-centrists, and black nationalists, that I would prefer to not have any credibility, especially with the easily swayed youth.

There are many, many millions lower IQ people in Asia, Israel and Europe that live just fine in modern times.

They live in worse conditions compared to their higher IQ counterparts, and they're deemed to be less worthy by virtue of their intelligence and employment.

Oh, I did note that you neglected to include Africa, you know, that place with all the black people and the less than stable, well run governments.

Most don’t sit by and obsessively create paranoid racism fantasies to explain their failings.

I'm not going to argue that racism is rampant and the entire system is "against the black man", but I certainly can't argue that there's no racism anywhere within the system. One certainly can't say that some people don't have their biases and prejudices against black people, and that they don't use that as a guiding tool for determining who they employ? The Stormfronters and Amren types maybe small, but they do exist out there in various aspects of society.

[Ron]

"Heritability calculations are bogus."

Tell that to the people who study cancer.

To reject heritability calculation in toto is to reject a great deal of 20th Century medical science.

"Finally, the research you cited is based on 40 Fins."

1. The N-size of the Eyferth Study -- the study promoted by environmentalists such as Flynn and Nesbitt -- is considerably smaller than 40. To reject this study on the basis of N-size is to reject the best study that supports environmentalism as an explanation of the variance between racial groups.

2. The heritability measures of IQ from the Minnesota Twin Family Study are based on an N-sizes that are larger to considerably larger than 40.

3. The findings of the Minnesota Twins study is consistent with the findings of nearly a century of studies than have examined identical twins compared with fraternal twins, identical and fraternal twins compared to siblings, and siblings compared to unrelated peers -- which are various ways of measuring the same thing: heritability. (Consult Jensen's The g Factor for a summary and list of citations).

[Ron]

"http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html"

Yet another drive-by Shalizi cite.

Observe how people link to his article without making an argument themselves -- an indication of mystification through higher math.

It is logically possible that the correlation of correlations that is g is due to chance. It is also possible that a hundred flipped coins will land on their edges. Possible, but not likely.

Furthermore, if Shalizi is correct, then it should be easy to construct an IQ tests that yields no differences in the averages among the outlier races of the Old World. The fact that nobody has done this, eventhough the financial benefits for doing so are great (see No Child Left Behind), is telling -- and damning.

Finally, Shalizi himself concedes that it is hard to deny that differential natural selection accounts for at least some of the differences in the averages between populations.

[Ron]

"Even really optimistic estimates usually give mild to middling estimates of correlation ... say 0.4 or something ... almost nothing really.

1. 0.4 is not almost nothing. It is almost half.

2. Hedge fund managers would kill for that kind of predictive edge.

3. If is good enough for epidemiology, it is good enough for most people most of the time.

4. From pages of social science, name a more powerful predictor than IQ for a similar or wider variety of outcomes.

David

Your argument seems to boil down to both a practical and moral one. “Let’s just give the blacks all sorts of unearned and undeserved college admissions, jobs, contracts and other unfair advantages because they don’t have the genetics/IQ, character/motivation or cultural/support needed to compete as well as with more deserving Jews, Asians and Whites to earn these by any fair objective standard we can think of (University admissions have tried for decades using different formulae including income, geography, etc to boost Black). If we don’t they’ll feel bad about themselves, get angry and riot.”

(A) On the practical side, you readily admit all these Affirmative Discrimination programs are really only helping the middle class and elite Blacks. Also the most prominent leaders therein are master extortionist and conmen like Sharpton and Jackson. I have no worry about middle class and higher blacks who currently monopolize Affirmative Discrimination like a once young Condoleezza Rice, Jessie Jackson Jr., Michael Powell or even David Alexander going medieval in Suburbia because they are going to a University matched to their ability or making $75k instead of $250k rather than these being artificially inflated.

On the other hand, to the desperate low IQ blacks left in the inner cities and most prone to the violence you warn of, Affirmative Discrimination really has not ever existed for them as they cannot compete with the middle/upper class blacks. And yet none of the doomsday threats you outline have come to pass. Low IQ people of all colors tend to create disorganized, chaotic, hopeless communities with violence limited to spontaneous outbursts or immediate opportunism (Katrina, Detroit NBA championships, OJ Simpson, Seattle Pioneer Square Mardi Gras, et al). Although rarely done, rioters can be easily controlled when the political will and need is recognized (armed Guard going into New Orleans as things got worse over the ensuing days).

The only real danger has been from middle/upper class blacks “leaders” stirring up the lower class blacks to use them as a weapon to stick up society for more goodies primarily for middle/upper class blacks. The few visible middle/upper class “leaders” are usually swindlers across the board who enrich themselves and provide little to no real or lasting benefit to the underclass blacks. These demagogues should be subject to the most severe penalties for inciting racial hatred, a thousand-fold of any isolated hate crime penalties, to break this parasitic exploitation and potential for great civil disruptions and loss of life/property.

(B) On the moral side, you seem to be taking a some sort of Communist stance (from each according to their perceived need, to each according to their desire to contribute) suggesting government is right to forcibly take opportunities away from more the more talented and hardworking and give them to the more whiney and demanding.

We’ve already identified that there are a number of self-destructive pathologies within the black community which is not even putting forth an honest, motivated effort to try to and succeed (misplaced obsession with fast and easy sports/entertainment glamour and money, single mom and baby daddies). So on this point alone, why should society indulge and promote such anti-social and individually destructive group behavior by rewarding it. This makes no sense and is patently unjust.

Furthermore, there your argument hinges on their expectation of low-IQ blacks. Does society really have an obligation to fulfill unrealistic expectations of a group that wants and feels entitled to a big set of preferences over all other other group simply because of their skin color? It is immeasurably more immoral to cheat those who have the talent, motivation, make the sacrifices to meet any set of fair, quantitative and objective standards out of the goals they’ve worked to achieve because they have the wrong skin color. Low IQ people of any color can get along fine in modern society and do better in America than the majority of higher IQ 3rd world people. It is not the state’s responsibility to cater to the unrealistic and underserved demands of one group and place it above all others.

BTW, you are exhibiting the same signs of paranoia racism I mentioned. I did not mention “Africa” because I was making the argument that, along with American blacks (and Sub-Saharan Africans by extension), there are many millions of low-IQ individuals in the higher IQ races who live just fine in modern society. Thus demonstrating low-IQ is not a barrier to living in modern society. The problem you point out is a problem with American blacks and their relatively unrealistic expectation of what life owes them – regardless of their talents or efforts.

[anonymous 1]

DA:
"The only reason that middle class pool exists is by virtue of the same programs that you're against."

I am actually somewhat sympathetic to your argument for affirmative action, DA, because it is based on pragmatics and not risible cries of racism. However, if we are having trouble getting certain immigrant groups to be as competitive as the native WASPs (for whatever reason environment and/or genetics), then my conclusion is very simple:

We need to severely cut back on allowing certain underperforming groups into this country so we don't keep compounding the problem.

That said, if we find out the primary reason for racial achievement disparities was due to the environment & if we find out how to alter these environmental stressors to significantly ameliorate the IQs of those immigrant groups, then we can let more and more in.

By the same token, if we find out that the primary reason for racial achievement disparities was due to genetics & if we find out how to alter these genetic factors to significantly ameliorate the IQs of those immigrant groups, then we can let more and more in.

[anonymous 1]

DA:
"Is it better to be a poorly performing minority in a field with a middle class lifestyle, or some blue collar joe schmoe living as a prole?"

No, it's better if anyone of any race who is not 'college ready' strongly considers a job that is going to pay them a 100 grand or more and without all the college debt, like a vocational career as a plumber, electrician, mechanic, welder etc...

On another thread, DA, you were both lauding and (slightly) disparaging nursing. Nursing is another career that can pay over a $100K. Nurse anesthetists (do 1 year after getting the RN degree) can charge up to $150 an hour. Most doctors can't make that, btw.

You want the money and the prestige. If you aren't going to know how to make yourself look good enough to Caucasian women after making at least $100K a year, are the rest of us really supposed to believe you'll be able to accomplish that just because you have a more glamorous degree? Maybe, but you understand why we have our doubts about that.

[Bob]

"Bob, excellent post on IQ and heritability. Seems pretty thorough."

Thank you.

For the benefit of those who did not read the article, it explains the biological basis of intelligence and discusses the heritability of various intelligence related factors, such as perceptual speed, brain volume, etc. It shows that intelligence heritability can be estimated by several completely diverse techniques (these are explained) and that these all point to an adult heritability of over 80%.

Bob

[David Alexander]

I have no worry about middle class and higher blacks who currently monopolize Affirmative Discrimination like a once young Condoleezza Rice, Jessie Jackson Jr., Michael Powell or even David Alexander going medieval in Suburbia because they are going to a University matched to their ability or making $75k instead of $250k rather than these being artificially inflated.

In contrast to your optimism, I contend that this group sans Affirmative Action will not make $75K, but much lower figures that are no better than their working class counterparts. Nobody's going to let them into college, nor apply for jobs when there are more than enough well qualified white applicants. I think you underestimate the level of resentment in certain segments of the community.

So on this point alone, why should society indulge and promote such anti-social and individually destructive group behavior by rewarding it. This makes no sense and is patently unjust.

I'm not arguing for the those in the ghetto who don't play by the rules to be rewarded. I'm arguing that under without affirmative action, there is no incentive for the underclass to behave since the reward for their behaviour is drudgery and work that is looked down upon by the higher ranking members of society. Why be a janitor when you can live the flashy life of a drug dealer? Affirmative action at least gives him an office job that gives him some sense of dignity and respect.

It is immeasurably more immoral to cheat those who have the talent, motivation, make the sacrifices to meet any set of fair, quantitative and objective standards out of the goals they’ve worked to achieve because they have the wrong skin color.

I guess I've always had this hypothesis that white people have a wider social and buisness network, and thus, they'll always find work and succeed, while the average black person has so similar network to use and build upon.

Low IQ people of any color can get along fine in modern society and do better in America than the majority of higher IQ 3rd world people.

This site, Steve Sailor's place, FuturePundit, AmRen, and Stormfront seem to keep parotting statistics that some would say prove otherwise.

The problem you point out is a problem with American blacks and their relatively unrealistic expectation of what life owes them – regardless of their talents or efforts.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Some would argue that due to the fact that we imported this group against its will (let's not discuss forced employment), and bestowed citizenship upon it, we have a duty to ensure that this group lives as well as the majority.

No, it's better if anyone of any race who is not 'college ready' strongly considers a job that is going to pay them a 100 grand or more and without all the college debt, like a vocational career as a plumber, electrician, mechanic, welder etc...

Maybe it's due to my upbringing or ancestry, but I'd sympathize with the arguments that maybe it's better to have a higher status position with the crippling student loan debt to appeal to an elitist society than to have the high income blue collar work that leaves one as a rich prole at best.

Besides, if you're not smart enough to get thru college, or hell, high school, how are you smart enough to become a plumber or electrician? Plus, don't the high prole whites have a lock on those jobs?

Nursing is another career that can pay over a $100K

Only if you work massive amounts of overtime if you're an RN from what I've seen from my aunts and godmother.

BTW, I considered going into nursing due to the overtime pay, but I suck at chemistry, and I'm much to weak to be a male nurse...

Most doctors can't make that, btw.

No, but the doctors sill have the prestiege that the nurse anesthetits have.

You want the money and the prestige.

You're right, I am a money and prestige whore, and it's why I've isolated myself socially. I feel inferior to everybody who has a college degree, and I feel too "intellectual" for the blue collar types. I'm a damned dirty snob and elitist suburban snot.

[anonymous 1]

DA, like I said, I actually have some sympathy for your position on the justification of AA for certain underperforming groups. That group includes people whose ancestors came to America voluntarily, like you, and who aren't direct descendants of American black slaves or Native Americans. For whatever reason, environment, genetics, or both, America is having a hard time with certain underperforming groups.

As I said earlier, until we figure out how to equalize the gap between the underperforming groups and the native WASPs, we don't need to be allowing so many more underperforming groups into this country, or they'll just start clamoring for more redistribution of income and entitlements, like AA, just like you are doing.

America has only finite resources and there are other groups that can better help expand the economy. In so doing, we may be in a better position to allow more underperforming groups in the future.

[anonymous 1]

DA, another thing that concerns me about underperforming groups is the distribution of phenotype of behavior/IQ among the 2nd and 3rd generation progeny of the initial immigrants. There is a certain 'regression to the mean' that one can already see with your family, based on what you're telling us about them.

That is scary and likely not what your ancestors had in mind when they came here. And, it is what the rest of us in American society are going to have to try to deal with and placate- probably imperfectly with more handouts and behaviors to 'avoid' dealing more than we absolutely have to with undesirable elements.

Don't kid yourself. More individuals like your little nephew will make you look bad. I'm not suggesting this is at all fair, btw. For self- preservation issues alone, you should be as interested in the immigration debate as anyone else in America.

[anonymous 1]

DA:
"... smart enough to become a plumber or electrician? Plus, don't the high prole whites have a lock on those jobs?"

There is such a dearth of people to do the massive amount of work that I suspect you'd be able to get in and potentially make a lot.

Nursing is something you should consider. It has enough prestige. Over the past 20 years, RN salaries and RN prestige have skyrocketed. BTW, the proper term for an rn anesthetist is nurse anesthesiologist. Now, that sounds a lot better than a plumber or electrician. Women would like that title and love the money that goes with it.

[David Alexander]

Nursing is something you should consider.

It's much too late for that since I have too many sunk credits in political science at this point, and my parents are expecting a potential PhD candidate with an instant track to becoming the Minister of State. I oversold them on a potential career path, and they're demanding adherence to it.

Seriously, if I had the choice to do certain things over again, I would have gone into nursing, achieve the RN title, and cash out with overtime.

DA, another thing that concerns me about underperforming groups is the distribution of phenotype of behavior/IQ among the 2nd and 3rd generation progeny of the initial immigrants. There is a certain 'regression to the mean' that one can already see with your family, based on what you're telling us about them.

I suspect that's because Caribbean and Mexican immigrants end up moving into areas where these bad habits are commonplace, and the children end up learning those behaviours from friends and classmates at school and the media geared towards minorities (read: BET).

More individuals like your little nephew will make you look bad.

My nephew is a decent kid, but he lives in the heart of one of the most entrenched ghettos of New York. It's hard to fight the brainwashing that goes on in that neighbourhood, and his mother is a fat, ugly, ghetto bitch, who like many other underclass parents presumes that food, clothing, and shelter are the only things you need to provide for a child. If my mother didn't have fibromylagia, I suspect that she would have asked for custody years ago...

I love him to death, but sometimes, he depresses me beyond the point of return...

Admittedly, my other nephew has a mother who pushes him, and encourages him to do well in school, and the results are seen in his lack of discipline problems and his lack of failing grades. My cousins' children are less ghetto as well, and their parents take a more active approach to their children's lives.

BTW, of my grandmother's 9 children, four have bachelors degrees (and 1 masters degree), 1 has an associates degree, and two (my younger brother and I) are in a race to get ours. It's the two who have gone to jail who are not enrolled or have made any recent attempts enroll.

[anonymous 1]

DA, 2/9 with criminal histories and little ambition in the 2/3rd generations is a poor record despite the efforts of you other 7. If 2/3rd generation immigrants show rates like that, we are doomed as a country. That, and the 'gravy train' is over for decent, law abiding individuals from lower performing groups, like yourself.

I'll say it again, the immigration debate should concern you as much as anyone else, if only for self-preservation.

The offsrping of high IQ African Americans are particularly hit hard by regression to the low mean of the average IQ of blacks.

The assortive mating among the brightest who often go to the same college, live in the same neighborhoods and work in the same elite professions I think is accelerating the evolution of a high IQ group.

You can see the results in a clearly elevated average IQ for Azk Jews over a relatively short time period. There is an obsession in mate selection within this group and others for high IQ and high income mates (correlated) which leads to very directed high-IQ evolution. Modern work, cities and economies only increase opportunites for such high-IQ selection and accelerate the hybridization effects.

I suspect this selective mating for high-IQ types also happens within the AfAm community, but probably not as quickly as within the Jewish and Asian communities where there is tremendous cultural and family pressure and standards of desirability that promote IQ near the very top. Thus you can see a lot of very smart but dorky looking white guys with Asian babes - guys that most white and almost no black woman would even think of as a "man".