Best blog comment

"The more I read this blog, the more I realize the importance of being born to parents [who] make a lot of money." [link]

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

IQ is more highly correlated with life outcomes for people with below average to average IQs. Most career tracks have an IQ floor, and if your IQ isn't high enough to meet the floor level, you can't perform that job adequately. Few career tracks have IQ floors much higher than 115, so if your IQ is higher than that, your parental wealth and connections become very important.

Thus, the higher your IQ, the more important the wealth of your parents becomes (the very opposite of what most people think). People with exceptionally high IQs but inadequate parents often have poor life outcomes because of the mismatch.

Comments

[PA]

That guy wrote "prole" about five times in one comment. Was he satirising your frequent use of that word? Could you please define "prole" ?

[~trumwill]

I might moderate that to say that being born to parents that make good money and have a lot of connections. Being the son of The Plumber King of Pocatello who makes $200,000 a year is probably not as valuable as being the son of a professor making half that.

[Paavo Ojala]

I'm doing my best to make sure that my children will be born to parents that make a lot of money.

[Dan Morgan]

I might moderate that to say that being born to parents that make good money and have a lot of connections.

I think that having an above average IQ far outweighs the income or connections of your parents. Consider person A who has an IQ of 130 and his parents are low income and with no connections. Person B has an IQ of 85 but has parents with loads of money and with lots of connections.

Person A should do fine assuming that his parents didn't mess him up somehow. Person B with the IQ of 85 will typically struggle regardless of his parents. Connections can only get him so far. Better for him, his parents just give him money.

So perhaps this a better way to put HS's quote in his post:

The more I read this blog, if my IQ is low, the more I realize the importance of being born to parents [who] make a lot of money.

[what if]

can it be that these days kinds who have rich parents also have above average IQ?

[Vim]

"I think that having an above average IQ far outweighs the income or connections of your parents."

How can a person be so wrong?

[mnjohn]

The true views of this site come out. Only your family's wealth should matter and not your intellect. Being born to a family with immense privileges does in fact have distinct advantages. From having SAT prep classes raise your score by hundreds of points(does anyone really believe Steve Sailer when he says George Bush has an IQ of 125 based on his SAT's?) to padding your resume with all kinds of extracurricular activities, to having connections that help you land a job. It's reverse social darwinism at it's best.

[mnjohn]

I left a reasonable comment but it was taken down. Does this blog censor opposing viewpoints?

[mnjohn]

haha, no, it was put back up actually so it's good.

[Buckwheat]

William Petersen is leaving CSI. If you were the producer, whom would you replace him with (hint: he's irreplaceable)?

[Steve Sailer]

Choose your parents wisely.

[Dan Morgan]

After I wrote "I think that having an above average IQ far outweighs the income or connections of your parents", Vim comments "How can a person be so wrong?"

I work at one of America's largest and most successful companies. I came here in the 1980s after sending the company a resume. Then I had an interview and was hired. The same is true of virtually everyone I work with. Family connections are meaningless in this environment. The hiring process is a meritocracy.

I am sure that most successful large corporations work the same way. And some of best jobs in America are in these large corporations.

And once hired into a major corporation, family connections mean nothing. People get promoted due to the internal dynamics of the company.

So where am I so wrong that family connections and family money matter more than IQ in achieving success in America?

[Dan Morgan]

Oops, the last sentence I wrote should have read:

So where am I so wrong in saying that IQ matters more than family connections and family money for achieving success in America?

[David Alexander]

Pre-Race Realism: Through hard work, my children can achieve anything that they desire.

Post-Race Realism: My children will do no better than me and in a few cases, due to the regression to the mean, my children can do worse than me. They can work as hard as they want, and very little will change.

Depending on your race, there's no incentive to have kids...

[Anonymous]

David Alexander, jesus christ man, how can you be so pathetic?

I come from a community with a lower iq than north american blacks. Three generations ago my family was illiterate. My brother has a masters in electrical engineering and im doing my engineering degree. If someone told me i couldn't do vector calculus, programming, or physics I'd tell them to go fuck themselves.

For god's sakes, grow a pair of testicles.

[Vim]

"So where am I so wrong that family connections and family money matter more than IQ in achieving success in America"

I don't have any numbers. I just think it's a lot easier to have a relative give you a job than to have to earn it yourself.

[Half Sigma]

Our labor market is based on career tracks. Once you get on the track, the train just takes you down the track. The difficulty is getting onto the track in the first place. That's where your parents are crucially important, they are responsible for padding your resume with Ivy League degrees and summer internships, and perhaps the key contact you need to get your first job on a quality career track.

Once you're on the track, your family then takes a backseat role.

[Spungen]

David, how will we ever marry you off with that attitude? You talk as if you're 38 instead of 24.

HS's theory sounds right. Devil's advocate, though: I don't know many people's actual IQs. And in my prole youth, there were many misfits who acted as if they had high IQs (especially men), who turned out to be pretty average in SAT scores or other g-loaded achievements. It may be that proles who don't stack up in looks, charm, sports or employer-valued skills tend to ape an intellectual "critic" attitude above what their actual intellect justifies.

[anonymous 1]

I don't have any numbers. I just think it's a lot easier to have a relative give you a job than to have to earn it yourself.

lol!

i respect the fact that u have a legitimately high iq, but this is exactly the criticism that whites and asians have about non- asian minorities getting jobs/educational breaks from their big brother (the government) thru affirmative action.

we really suspect that a non- trivial amount of blacks & hispanics haven't 'earned' the white collar jobs/ educational opportunities they might have.

most of us don't have relatives who can just give us jobs, btw.

[Dan Morgan]

HS writes: The difficulty is getting onto the track in the first place. That's where your parents are crucially important, they are responsible for padding your resume with Ivy League degrees and summer internships, and perhaps the key contact you need to get your first job on a quality career track.

Yes, that may be true somewhat regarding Ivy League schools and certain narrow lines of work (perhaps like Big Law). But a lot of people go to Ivy League schools that aren't rich. In fact, these schools are far more merit based than years ago.

Regarding parent's help though connections or internships, we hire Ivy League people where I work, and I don't see these as factors. We recently hired an Asian young woman who went to Yale, and I bet her parents were not wealthy or well connected. We hired another Asian women from MIT, and I bet the same is true. We recently hired a guy from MIT. He was originally from Jamaica. He is incredibly smart. I don't think the income or connections of his parents would matter much.

But of course your parents need to encourage you, but that is not the same as them needing to be rich and well connected.

I have niece who graduated from Swarthmore. The marketing job she took had no connection to her parent’s money or contacts. In fact, her parents divorced while she was in college and they did not pay for her to go to school.

Perhaps I am being a high prole here, and I don't grasp what is needed in the high caliber careers in say Big Law or investment banking. I may be stuck thinking in the $100k to $250k job range. But the high caliber careers are a small fraction of the jobs that upper middle income people take.

[David Alexander]

David, how will we ever marry you off with that attitude? You talk as if you're 38 instead of 24.

At this point, it's highly unlikely that I'll be married at this point. Hell, I'll be surprised if I get a degree within four years...

[Christopher Tracy]

What if a person with say a 150+ IQ (which would make this said individual unusually gifted even among high IQ individuals) has no prominent connections to help him set afoot on a prestigious career track? I would hypothesize that in instances such as this, the individual's natural ability will trump the circumstances in which he was born.

I think that the higher a person's IQ is past 115, the more important his parent's wealth is up until a certain point at which the person's IQ is so high that there is no way he could be denied his proper place in society. His talent will shine through and he will find ways to make his own connections onto his desired career track.

I think academia is a prime example of this.

[Buckwheat]

re nepotism

Does anyone really believe that Ivanka Trump's anything special intellectually? That she did not get help getting into U Penn? Nepotism is yesterday's news.

re career tracks--some truth to that, but the real story is entreneurship, which does not concern itself with "tracks" (more like cojones and talent).

[Peter]

And in my prole youth, there were many misfits who acted as if they had high IQs (especially men), who turned out to be pretty average in SAT scores or other g-loaded achievements.

Ha ha, brings back memories of high school, any number of overachiever teachers' pet kids had a huge awakening when the SAT scores came out.

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

I could be wrong but asians seem to be all about benefitting from personal connections to me. Many asian kids I know in science often work with asian advisors or groups of other asian students. Growing up, they work in their family business or the business of a close family associate. And quite often I see asian high school students or undergraduates working with asian professors who turn out to be close family friends. A lot of this holds true whether we are talking about Chinese or Indians. Not to mention Asians put tremendous resources and attention into helping their kids get ahead.

[anonymous 1]

I could be wrong but asians seem to be all about benefitting from personal connections to me.

vim, every group practices free association to benefit members of their own group, to varying degrees.

but, there is a huge philosophical difference between hanging around a friend/professor of your same group when u have above average academic scores/credentials and doing so when u don't. the issue is more superfluous for asians and indians in terms of deserving white collar jobs/educational opportunities.

[Turambar]

Does anyone else think that DA doesnt understand race-realism and regression to the mean?

Anyway I dont think this is accurate:
Thus, the higher your IQ, the more important the wealth of your parents becomes (the very opposite of what most people think). People with exceptionally high IQs but inadequate parents often have poor life outcomes because of the mismatch.

Rick Rosner would have had issues no matter how much money his parents had.

You can look at all sorts of people high IQ people from bad environments that did well- Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Oprah Winfrey.

Here the importance is not the wealth of the parents, but the values the child was raised with. If we define "inadequate" in a moral and attention sense I think HS's argument is more cogent.

[Half Sigma]

Turambar,

Rosner is the classic example of bad outcomes when someone with a super-high-IQ has prole parents.

Of course, not ALL kids with high IQs and prole backgrounds will have bad outcomes, but such kids are AT HIGH RISK for bad outcomes.

And is Oprah really THAT smart? Furthermore, she was lucky to be born with a beauty-pageant winning looks and body. A guy who looks like Bill Gates, on the other hand, doesn't get any breaks.

[Turambar]

I think Rosner is an example of a douche who never doing enough self examination to realize he needs to take responsibility for his own life.

I am not an Oprah fan at all but apparently she does have quite a bio. She could read at 3, was dressed in potato sacks, skipped two grades, was a run away and still on honor society. Parents were a maid and a coal miner who werent married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

"... but, there is a huge philosophical difference ..."

Ha ha. So now we are discussing philosophy? I thought we were discussing the very pragmatic issue of whether it was helpful to have friends in high places or not.

You are shifting my language and the basis of the argument from one of what people ARE doing to one about whether people OUGHT to be doing what they are doing. In particular, you are coming up with some convoluted theory that makes whatever it is Asians are doing okay and whatever it is you think blacks and Hispanics are doing is bad.

So, anyway, I started out with a pretty general statement about getting something handed to you being easier than earning it which I consider so self-evident that it's almost a tautology. I didn't say anything about what ought to happen just what is. You responded with this:

"i respect the fact that u have a legitimately high iq, but this is exactly the criticism that whites and asians have about non- asian minorities getting jobs/educational breaks from their big brother (the government) thru affirmative action."

So then I say what I have to say about Asians. Now, tellingly you don't discuss my perceptions (which admittedly may be wrong). Instead you start talking about 'freedom of association' and whatever like I am telling Asians what to do. I merely said that they use their connections intensively and that's true. Now you shift into the language of what ought to happen and what asians 'deserve' to do. And apparently what they deserve to do is use their family and social connections more intensely than everybody else.

If it's so superfluous that they do this, how come they do it so intensely? Note I am not just talking about hanging around. I am talking about working with professors that are friends of your dad for recommendation letters. I am talking about being in a study group of like 10-20 people where you all share notes, past exams and help each other with questions. I am talking about giving each other advice on good places to get stuff done and easy classes and all of that. (I don't have anything against this by the way. The Asian students are some of the most well informed students and I seek their advice quite often. All I'm saying is it happens and it is common.)

[Christopher Tracy]

Whoa,

Asserting that Oprah Winfrey has a high-IQ is one issue, but then saying that she has beauty-pageant winning looks is another. Oprah is far from being a beautiful woman.

[Half Sigma: Oprah Winfrey won the Miss Black Tennessee beauty pageant when she was 18.]

Also, I think that for every high IQ type of individual like Rick Rosner who made nothing for himself, you could find at least 10 other people within the same intelligence range who have triumphed over having no significant family connections.

[Christopher Tracy]

I stand corrected. Must have been a lot of ugly women at that competition for her to win, regardless. Either that, or Father Time kicked her ass.

[Vim]

Chris:

I think the classic curve of IQ vs income probably describes the situation.

http://darwinsarmy.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/iq-cartoon.jpg

[mnjohn]

Don't forget the other high IQ bouncer Christopher Langan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan

[Jim Beam]

But who's going to pay for the high-IQ person's wedding and their college education?

[Gannon]

"Half Sigma: Oprah Winfrey won the Miss Black Tennessee beauty pageant when she was 18"

Don't be surprised. Most women are very attractive during their teens, because God or mother nature wants them to get pregnant. White women decline fastly after 25. Most black women, specially the ones who get fat, start declining at 20. Most black women look their best in High School.

[Buckwheat]

"You can look at all sorts of people high IQ people from bad environments that did well- Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Oprah Winfrey [SIC! DID I HEAR SIC?].

Oprah's "genius" was ripping off Phil Donahue's format and applying it to middle-class women. Oprah is basically a prole. Ever seen her interviewed? Not what I'd call intelligent.

[David Alexander]

Does anyone else think that DA doesnt understand race-realism and regression to the mean?

No, I think I understand the topic quite well. If I don't understand, then presume it's low IQ that prohibits me from understanding.

Ha ha, brings back memories of high school, any number of overachiever teachers' pet kids had a huge awakening when the SAT scores came out.

A similar effect occurred when I took the Specialized High School test in 8th grade and discovered that my scores were too low to enter any of the schools while some Asian kids with similar grades was able to attend either Bronx Science or Brooklyn Tech. The effect was also replicated when I scored a 1060 on my PSATs, the same score as a friend who was barely passing, and when I took the SATs twice achieving a score of 1060 and 1080. It was on the third try that I finally reached 1180.

Furthermore, she was lucky to be born with a beauty-pageant winning looks and body.

Apparently, the race realist likes black women.

White women decline fastly after 25. Most black women, specially the ones who get fat, start declining at 20.

Gannon, I've noted that white women age rapidly, especially those of Northern European or Celtic lineage, but middle class black women can age decently, especially if their lives manage to avoid extreme stress. The fifty year old women in my family look much better than the fifty year old women that I've met amongst my white friends or at work.

Oprah's "genius" was ripping off Phil Donahue's format and applying it to middle-class women.

I would amend the statement to say that Oprah pandered to middle class stay-at-home white women. Black people only care about Oprah because she's rich.

[Gannon]

@David: I think your family is an anomaly because your ancetors were high class, part of the mulato elite that ruled haiti. But in general, the earlier the menarchy, the faster the aging process stes in, and black girls have the earleist menarchies. Obviously social class and working/lifestyle play a great role, but in general east asian girls maintain their teen looks the longest, followed by white girls, latians and finally black girls, in that order. Middleaged women are invisible anyway...

[David Alexander]

I think your family is an anomaly because your ancetors were high class, part of the mulato elite that ruled haiti

Except we're not really a part of the Ancien mulatto elite. Yes, I have white ancestry, but to claim that were the elite is a bit of a stretch. Compared to your average Haitian, both sides of my family did better than average, but we certainly did not have the monopoly on money that they did. Some have called us "mulattos sans argent" (mulattos without money), but since there was no real middle class, there's no descriptive demographic term for my family.

BTW, my aunts (and mother) range in skin tone from light skin to dark skin, and I'd state that all of them aged decently, especially in light of some of the white and Latina women that I've seen. My Italian friend's 60 year old mom looks great for her age and can easily attract a man of her age while Wellesley Queen's Anglo-Saxon mother looks like my 78 year old grandmother.

Of course, maybe my viewpoint is jaded by Caribbean ancestry and living in a low stress non-poor lifestyle. The secret joke within the Caribbean American community is that Caribbean women are simply better looking than their American counterparts...

[Christopher Tracy]

Black women in general age better in comparison to women of other ethnicities because of their high melanin content.

[David Alexander]

Black women in general age better in comparison to women of other ethnicities because of their high melanin content.

I remember on some episode of Oprah where her medical consultant, Dr. Oz, recommended that black people increase their intake of Vitamin D to decrease their risk of cancer, since darker skin prohibits intake of Vitamin D which aids in fighting tumors.

[Peter]

I've noted that white women age rapidly, especially those of Northern European or Celtic lineage, but middle class black women can age decently, especially if their lives manage to avoid extreme stress.

Asian women also tend to age quite well.

For the most part, however, aging is a highly individual thing. When I was in my early 30's a man greeted me by name in a bookstore, and as he was well into middle age I initially thought he might've been a somewhat younger friend of my father's. Wrong. He was a high school classmate of mine.

And as Roissy pointed out a while back, Brigitte Bardot and Sophia Loren are the same age, and both were stunning beauties in their younger days, yet today Bardot could pass for Loren's mother. They've aged at hugely different rates.

[Vim]

"But in general, the earlier the menarchy, the faster the aging process stes in, and black girls have the earleist menarchies."
--Gannon

Why is this person still taken seriously?

[FRT]

Why is this person still taken seriously?

I'm pretty sure he's not. It's just really funny to watch him toss out his opinions as though they are Immutable Laws of Life & Science.

There's a reason for that expression, "Black don't crack" - their melanin protects them from the biggest cause of aging - the sun. What can make it seem like they don't age as well is that black women have higher rates of obesity. However, a black woman who is not overweight will probably look significantly younger than her white counterpart. And even if she's fat, her skin will still be less wrinkled.

What I'm curious about is what makes Asian's skin age so well, despite often not having more melanin than whites.

[anonymous 1]

vim:
I could be wrong but asians seem to be all about benefitting from personal connections to me.

this was your statement that started the discussion. if u want to amend or retract it, fine. however, when i see the words 'seem to be all about benefitting(sic)' i take it to mean that u r suggesting that this is the primary reason for asian success. feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

with that said, my point was that this is not the major reason for asian success. it is a reason. but, the main reason is the s/e asian's academic success and that this would entitle them to better white collar jobs and educational opportunities more than any personal connections they subsequently make. i will accept that the personal connections, especially with other asians, might work synergistically, but they would have much less effect without the underlying s/e asian academics.

again, my main point is that the main reason for asian success is due to meritocratic, non- familial/friend reasons and that this is starkly different from a non- trivial amount of black/hispanic success that i argue is due to non-meritocratic 'big brother' government intervention via aa, for example.

[Christopher Tracy]

"What I'm curious about is what makes Asian's skin age so well, despite often not having more melanin than whites."

I think it's because their skin has more elasticity than whites, which also accounts for their slanted eyes.

[Gannon]

Gannon is taking seriously Vim, because his opinions are cientifically based, logic, coherent and moral. The real problem lies within your posts: you use a lot of empty words, speak around the issues, but your words always have been empty. Unable to reason against the Gannonite school of thought, you invoke the leftists last resort, censorship.

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

1. Affirmative action isn't a personal connection. So that seems like an off-topic rant to me.

"again, my main point is that the main reason for asian success is due to meritocratic, non- familial/friend reasons"

2. That strains credibility for me when each child succeeding is a full-on family project with Asians; and helping each individual succeed is a group project.

3. This Asians versus blacks conversation is getting pretty lame. I don't care if you think Asians get less from government than blacks. They obviously get more from their families than blacks too.

Chris:

"I think it's because their skin has more elasticity than whites, which also accounts for their slanted eyes."

They don't have 'slanted eyes'. They have epicanthic folds. There is extra skin in the corner of their eyes and this changes the apparent (but not the actual) shape of their eyes. They are also not the only ones. There are African and Amerindian tribes who tend to have epicanthic folds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold

Interestingly, "All humans initially develop epicanthic folds in the womb."

Gannon:

"because his opinions are cientifically based"

... that's not how you spell 'scientifically' ...

"The real problem lies within your posts: you use a lot of empty words, speak around the issues, but your words always have been empty."

Some people can reason philosophically. Some can reason mathematically. Some can reason empirically. Some of us can do all three. So I am sorry if sometimes I ask whether a question is well-defined and worth answering in addition to what the answer to the question is.

[Gannon]

But that's my point: you don't reason Vim. You just throw a few smoke bombs and argue at the corners of the issues.

[anonymous 1]

vim:
1. Affirmative action isn't a personal connection. So that seems like an off-topic rant to me.

i suggested that aa was like having a 'big brother,' and that was in quotes. this was b/c u suggested that asians garner assistance from friend/family connections. i never suggested aa was an actual real big brother. u r obfuscating.

2. That strains credibility for me when each child succeeding is a full-on family project with Asians; and helping each individual succeed is a group project.

even if u r correct about this issue of group success (u might be, btw), i don't see why asian success should be in any way marginalized when they can perhaps work better in academic groups than blacks/hispanics. and, yes, i'm suggesting that by using this issue to explain away asian academic success, u r marginalizing the success, whether u admit to it or not.

3. This Asians versus blacks conversation is getting pretty lame.

white liberals, like jewish atheist or abe, academically punish asians to benefit blacks/hispanics. i apologize for data loading:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004079.html

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/06/asian-americans-hurt-by-affirmative.html

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/asians-at-berkeley.html

i have -some- sympathy for aa for american slave descended blacks and native americans. i have little sympathy for why non- slave descended blacks or latinos get this help. it's a germane issue for most s/e asians who are concerned about college/post- collegiate admissions and such.

[anonymous 1]

vim:
I don't care if you think Asians get less from government than blacks. They obviously get more from their families than blacks too.

for collegiate and post- collegiate elite institutions, this is not just my opinion, it is a fact. and, blacks and latinos in these elite insitutions benefit at the expense of asians in many cases.

whether they get more or less from their families should be less relevant in a meritocracy than the final academic outcome (i.e. results from standardized tests, GPA...). again, obfuscating.

"Post-Race Realism: My children will do no better than me and in a few cases, due to the regression to the mean, my children can do worse than me. They can work as hard as they want, and very little will change. Depending on your race, there's no incentive to have kids..."

Quite a portmanteau of fallacies. To start with, is there no value to life unless you have an IQ over 130? As IQ increases past a certain point, the capacity for second guessing and neuroses increases. As a group who do you think enjoys themselves more- blacks or jews? Look at the lilies of the field.

Secondly, you are an outlier already. Your IQ is already higher than most whites. Since you are already selected for some salutatory qualities, there is no reason to suspect that your children would regress. Eugenically, as long as you dont marry a broomstick you should be fine.

I'd suggest that you could marry a Korean import. She would meet the requirements of the whole blog. She would defer to you on clothing choices not knowing better, she could do nails, gannon would approve of her youth, and you left her untrimmed Peter would be happy. And for Vim, she can make poorly supported arguments.

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

" u r obfuscating."

Look, what am I supposed to be obfuscating? As far as I can understand you want to have a 'Asians are morally superior to Blacks' argument. I think that's a stupid argument.

You want to link whether Asians have a lot of familial help or not, to the issue of whether blacks get affirmative action or not. Again, I don't see what one has to do with the other. I think you are obfuscating the issue which is whether there is a lot of use of connections in the Asian community and whether it's higher than normal. I say it's a LOT higher than normal. If you disagree with me then say so if that sounds feasible then let me know! Instead, you want to switch this to a black conversation and as far as I can tell the only reason you want to switch this to a black conversation is because I'm black. Well, I'm not going to let you change the subject because what blacks do has nothing to do with what Asians do. And frankly, we can have that conversation afterwards if you want but I really have nothing to say on the issue. Obviously there is affirmative action and obviously it gives blacks and advantage. Again, I don't see what that has to do with the unusually HIGH use of connections and family in the Asian community.

I am more or less aware of affirmative action's effects on Asians. I have seen the 'information processing' blog before. I have seen the blog author posting on gnxp.

I think the situation is pretty overblown as many of the more brilliant Asians that fill up all the college spots are foreign born or children of recent immigrants. Since more than half of humanity is Asian, it's not really suprising this would happen.

"i don't see why asian success should be in any way marginalized"

That's mealy-mouthed liberal talk. I thought you didn't go in for that? 'Marginalized'? Ha ha. Next you will be saying I am part of the white supremacist power structure.

[Vim]

"for collegiate and post- collegiate elite institutions, this is not just my opinion, it is a fact. and, blacks and latinos in these elite insitutions benefit at the expense of asians in many cases."

Dude. What the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about? You seen pathologically determined to have a discussion about affirmative action which has NOTHING to do with what I was saying.

[Rtother]

What about networking? I'm not necessarily talking family connections, but rather socializing.

It seems to me, anecdotally speaking, that most of my superiors at work, while decently intelligent people, got where they are by networking. Either someone in the industry recommended them, or they met my other superiors at a forum or convention and made a good impression.

It aggravates me a little bit, especially since I'm not very good at networking. It’s not always the best person (which people here tend to think best = smartest), who gets the job. And it’s not all affirmative action’s fault either.

"...for collegiate and post- collegiate elite institutions, this is not just my opinion, it is a fact. and, blacks and latinos in these elite insitutions benefit at the expense of asians in many cases."
- anonymous 1

It happens at Princeton:
http://www.discriminations.us/2008/07/princeton_receives_weekly_chut.html

Everybody knows that without set asides, AA or special treatment(whatever you want to call it), blacks and hispanics at elite schools(or in just about any other field or area that requires brains) would be as common as snowballs in hell.

[David Alexander]

To start with, is there no value to life unless you have an IQ over 130?

To a certain extent, yes, there is no value for those who have IQs under 130. They won't do anything of use, nor will they make any real money in their life time to justify their existence. To a certain extent, they'll just soak up resources that would be better devoted to the high IQ.

As a group who do you think enjoys themselves more- blacks or jews? Look at the lilies of the field.

I'd argue that Jews enjoy themselves more since they have the financial capability to do so.

Secondly, you are an outlier already. Your IQ is already higher than most whites.

There is no way that my IQ is higher than that of most whites. If that was true, I would have finished schooling already in an intellectually rigorous program, and at minimum, I would have had SAT scores in 1400s.

Everybody knows that without set asides, AA or special treatment, blacks and hispanics at elite schools would be as common as snowballs in hell.

They could nuke AA right now, and the Ivy League would fill their student bodies with the children of their alumni networks than more FOB and first-generation Asian students or white high IQ students without "leadership" characteristics.

Of course, this leads to the question if it's better to sneak in a few black and Hispanic students into elite institutions to essentially co-opt them and prevent possible radicalization?

[Vim]

DA: If you're so sure you're below average then most likely every single person here knows what they are taking about and you don't. Why don't you just take people's advice?

[David Alexander]

Why don't you just take people's advice?

Why should I trust a race realist?

[Turambar]

"Secondly, you are an outlier already. Your IQ is already higher than most whites."

There is no way that my IQ is higher than that of most whites. If that was true, I would have finished schooling already in an intellectually rigorous program, and at minimum, I would have had SAT scores in 1400s.

You had an 1180 on your SAT's which would probably put you into the 120's. Which would put you ahead of most whites and Asians. And you speak English, so you should be ahead of 90% of the people in the world.

"As a group who do you think enjoys themselves more- blacks or jews? Look at the lilies of the field."

I'd argue that Jews enjoy themselves more since they have the financial capability to do so.

In popular culture, no. Blacks are "raising the roof" and "getting jiggy with it" while Jews are all "papa, can you hear me?" and rejecting suits pickle vendors.

To a certain extent, yes, there is no value for those who have IQs under 130. They won't do anything of use, nor will they make any real money in their life time to justify their existence.

Look at all the non-contributors who are high IQ. I am not counting having your own personal Grand Unifying Theory as an accomplishment. Rosner- accomplished nothing. Langdon seems happy enough but hasnt accomplished anything. Vos Savant writes an advice column. Kaczynski (IQ 167) worked on a couple of theorems and blowing stuff up because he was so happy. You could look at the Mega Society's Noesis which spends most of its time on in fighting and talking about excluding other IQ tests.

Jessica Cutler (IQ 140?) has accomplished nothing but disgracing her parents. Danica McKellar has a BA in math (yawn) and barely works any more as an actress.

[Buckwheat]

Vim, the nexus between affirmative action and nepotism is preferential treatment--both are nonmeritocratic and enablers of mediocrity.

Vim, I don't think you're black (are you Tim Wise writing as Vim?).

Anyway, Timmy, I think you're swell.

[Buckwheat]

DA

I think you're bright. F IQ. My grandfather was 1 of the happiest people ever, and I doubt his IQ was > 110.

[Tim Wise Super-witch-sniffer]

"Vim, I don't think you're black (are you Tim Wise writing as Vim?)."

As if the enduring doubts and jeers over Vims' academic status weren't hurtful enough, doubts are now voiced regarding his (or is it hers?)racial identification. Ha! Ain't the internet grand?

[David Alexander]

You had an 1180 on your SAT's which would probably put you into the 120's.

You seem to have discounted the PSAT score of 1060 and the first two SAT tries with scores of 1060 and 1080. In effect, the 1180 is a fluke, IMHO, and it's backed up by the absurdly low SAT II scores of 560 and 480 in English and Math I respectively.

And you speak English, so you should be ahead of 90% of the people in the world.

Yes, and I should be able to speak other languages fluently with ease, but I'm forgetting the basic French that took me nearly four years to amass. Smart people don't forget what they've learned at the age of 25.

In popular culture, no.

Popular culture certainly isn't the best marker of the traits of a race or ethnic group. For a group of people who "enjoy themselves", black people have a weird tendency to be jealous, miserable, and violent. Happy people generally don't shoot each other over the silliest things possible, or consider drug dealing as a lucrative career plan.

I can easily assure you that despite his blog posts, Half Sigma is considerably happier than the average black person who simply lives in ignorance.

Look at all the non-contributors who are high IQ

Yes, and what have the low-IQ people given the world? The high IQ have given us nearly every technological advance that the world has seen, while the low IQ simply get in the way, suck up resources, and make live miserable for the productive high IQ. Stop trying to defend the the low IQ by magically pointing out a few high IQ people who didn't do much. It's no different than when somebody uses the success of a few black people to paint all blacks as *potential* successes.

I think you're bright.

I think that's your guilt talking.

[Turambar]

Yes, and what have the low-IQ people given the world? The high IQ have given us nearly every technological advance that the world has seen, while the low IQ simply get in the way, suck up resources, and make live miserable for the productive high IQ. Stop trying to defend the the low IQ by magically pointing out a few high IQ people who didn't do much.

Its not just a few high IQ people- its the Mega Society that specifically tries to find the highest IQ people. I dont see those guys doing anything but bar bouncing and in fighting.

The other highest IQ person, vos Savant seems nice enough. But she hasnt accomplished anything more than Erma Bombeck.

And I thought the point here wasnt what they've "given the world", but their personal happiness level. Isnt "50 cent" probably happier than your average doctor?

[mnjohn]

It's ludicrous to think that only those with IQ's above 130 are useful. What about all the accountants, financial analysts, operations managers, marketing specialists? I know these jobs don't require tremendous intellect but without them people with high IQ's wouldn't be able to found any companies or get much done. I would argue that increasingly people to the left half of the bell curve are becoming irrelevant and that is becoming more dangerous as they have less to do and will start forming more of an underclass, especially with our immigration policy. More and more jobs will become automated or require basic math skills. Looking forward into the future it seems like the state will have to come up with something for them to do, kind of like the deltas in the novel Brave New World. We will have to find some way to keep them occupied.

[Christopher Tracy]

DA,

The percentage of Americans with IQs above 130 is in the low single digits. This country would not survive without the support base of people whose IQ is below 130, thus negating your argument that those who have below superior intelligence lead insignificant, worthless lives. Even suggesting such a thing is beyond stupid, but I'm not attacking your perceived lack of intelligence when I say this. You're just too caught up in your insecurities to realize that given your skills, you can achieve something worthwhile in life instead of sulking about how you can't perform at a superior level on an IQ test.

[InterestedParty]

So this is your complicated excuse for why you're a genius, but not rich? Nice.

[Vim]

Buckwheat:

"Vim, the nexus between affirmative action and nepotism is preferential treatment--both are nonmeritocratic and enablers of mediocrity."

The relationship between nepotism and AA is a conversation worth having. It's just not the conversation I was having. And having that discussion does not address the issue at hand which is whether Asians have HIGH levels of help from family, friends and co-ethnics. It's interesting that people feel the need to introduce distractions in a vain attempt to avoid simply addressing the question.

Am I black? What does that have to do with Asians and their unusually large contributions to their family? Distractions. Distractions.

[anonymous 1]

vim:
I don't have any numbers. I just think it's a lot easier to have a relative give you a job than to have to earn it yourself.

me:
...but this is exactly the criticism that whites and asians have about non- asian minorities getting jobs/educational breaks from their big brother (the government) thru affirmative action.

vim:
I could be wrong but asians seem to be all about benefitting from personal connections to me.

vim:
You want to link whether Asians have a lot of familial help or not, to the issue of whether blacks get affirmative action or not. Again, I don't see what one has to do with the other.

and this is the point that we obviously disagree. u seemed to suggest above that it was easier to get a job/opportunity thru familial/friend connections.

i brought up that this is akin to blacks/latinos getting a job/opportunities thru affirmative action acting as a sort of 'big brother' to them, instead of the blacks/latinos actually earning the job thru meritocratic means.

u seem to suggest that asian success was largely due to familial/friend connections as evidenced by using the words 'all about' in your sentence. i responded that asian success was largely due to their own academic excellence and that the familial/friend connections that might assist them are more secondary in nature.

vim:
The relationship between nepotism and AA is a conversation worth having. It's just not the conversation I was having.

it was EXACTLY the conversation that i was having, b/c i saw the obiovus similarity of affirmative aciton as a 'big brother' in allowing a person to have a job/opportunity that they did not otherwise earn thru meritocratic means, as u implied happens with friend/family connections in the first sentence that started this entire topic:
I don't have any numbers. I just think it's a lot easier to have a relative give you a job than to have to earn it yourself.

if u don't want to have the discussion, fine. this took way too long to explain anyway, and i'm not sure there's much more for me to say to explain my position.

i agree with buckwheat's assertion that these type of methods of getting connections often foster non-meritocratic outcomes.

[scriblerus]

Don't usually read this blog, but this is pretty interesting discussion on this topic.

I've got to say that I bought into the whole "connections don't matter; it's hard work" thing back when I was going to school and now that I'm finding out the hard way that a 4.0 from a Catholic great books school counts for very little when you're up against people with mad connections at places like Harvard. That said, I think the ability to make connections in various fields is relatively open in the U. S. compared to many places like the UK.

One interesting person to toss into the conversation here would be the former chess champion, Bobby Fischer. By all accounts, he had an off the chart IQ, but he was a lousy human being and in most worlds he would have alienated most of the people who would have helped him, but his gift was so compelling that people put up with the insults, etc. in order to help him.

[Markku]

I think David Alexander is a moderately intelligent person. He can write clearly better than the average person. DA can write coherent and grammatically correct prose in his native tongue, which is much more than can be said of most people in the world who've graduated high school or an equivalent.

[Rain And]

The evidence clearly contradicts all of Half Sigma's assertions.

1) Adopted children do no better as adults if they are placed in rich households than they do if they are placed in prole households.

2) A study that looked at people who were accepted at Ivy league colleges but ended up going to no name colleges b/c of random events did no better as adults as those with the same IQ that did go to the Ivy colleges.

3) The work of Benbow and Lubinski show there is no ceiling to the earnings, education, and achievement advantages associated with IQ. People with IQs above 150 do better than people with IQs above 120. That is a fact.

In short, the parents and household that raise you are almost entirely meaningless, your success in life comes down primarily to the IQ (and other human capital traits) you are genetically lucky enough to be born with.

[Spungen]

1) Adopted children do no better as adults if they are placed in rich households than they do if they are placed in prole households.

Rain, would you share your cite for this? Did the study provide the adopted children's IQs?

[Half Sigma]

Adopted children do no better on g-loaded tests, BUT that's not the same as saying they to no better in life.

I'm sure that children adopted into upper middle class families do better in life than children adopted into prole families.

[David Alexander]

I'm sure that children adopted into upper middle class families do better in life than children adopted into prole families.

Now, based on your statement, you can see why certain groups feel the desire to pour in all sorts of private and public dollars on the poor in an attempt to replicate the environment of the upper middle class? The problem of course is that even if your poor lots of money into education and various other social programmes, it doesn't replicate the upper middle class parents in most cases.

Although, it would be interesting to see what happens to the adopted black children (of all geographic orgins). If these adopted parents are somehow able to get their low IQ children through college successfully, it may make environment a bit more important that we expected. Mind you, it's not in terms of boosting IQ, but extracting the most of from IQ as possible.