« Blacks in Prospect Park | Main | Herbivores in Japan »

October 25, 2010

Comments

I thought you were starting to lose it their with your photography...but then you post this sharp well thought out gem! Nicely done, HS.

Ms. Eisenlord's Facebook page lists "my quickly disappearing bank account" as her employer. She writes "I have no job". [1] He profile photo is of a woman (herself?) who appears to be drinking alcohol.

[1] http://www.facebook.com/heather.eisenlord

The Oracle of What should be Obvious to Everyone speaks!

"Murray's Bell Curve co-author, Richard Herrnstein, wrote an essay in 1973 called “I.Q. in the Meritocracy” in which he explained that, because economic success is correlated with IQ, the new meritocracy would come to have a genetically higher IQ than the rest of the population."

What effect do "above average to mediocre to low IQ" trophy wives have on the elite's IQ distribution?

"For starters, the prole class has been culled of its smartest members,"

Rural areas that are not 100% redneck need to start thinking real hard of ways to attract higher-IQ white people such as opening more high end shopping malls or they might end up like West Virginia where most native born, high IQ proles get out of the state to pursue their careers rather than stay and build wealth.

In West Virginia, even the governor (Joe Manchin) looks like a character straight from Deliverance.

"In other words, it was easier for a white child born to prole parents with an IQ of 125 to move up to the elite in 1960 than it is today."

Not really. Despite Sigma contention that all high IQ white people who failt to attend the Ivy League's wind up starving in trailer parks, the percentage of fortune 500 CEOs who are Ivy Leaguers has fallen, probably because Ivy League Affirmative Action has pushed out many talented whites into highly ranked state schools over the past three decades.

In 1980, 24% of F500 CEOs were Ivy Leaguers whereas only 10% were in 2005.

"Investment bankers are preppy-SWPL and people working for non-profits or in creative industries are hipster-SWPL, but both types of SWPL like sushi and degrees from Ivy League schools and neither type of SWPL would take a vacation to visit the heartland of America in an RV."

Investment bankers are NOT SWPLs.

Investment bankers are mostly country club, Nelson Rockefeller, Republicans (there was a news article a day or so ago about how the wealthiest GOP donors are donating to fellow country club Republican Mitt Romney, not Sarah Palin).

Investment Bankers eat meat, drive BMWs, have Czech underwear model trophy wives, play sports, are tall (a majority of Fortune 500 CEOs are over 6 feet tall) and only consider themselves Christians because going to a non-prole non-Evangelical Church is a good way to socialize with other elites during holidays, and weddings, not because they want they think abortion is a sin and want to blow away abortion doctors.

"In other words, it was easier for a white child born to prole parents with an IQ of 125 to move up to the elite in 1960 than it is today."

SWPL popular culture is with you on this one. Mad Men's Donald Draper worked in a fur store before rising to creative director on Madison Avenue during the 60's. I doubt today's creative directors come from anything less than Ivy's or elite boarding schools.


"(On SWPL) They are more interested in teaching English to monks in Sri Lanka and bringing solar power to remote parts of the Himalayas than they are in helping Americans living in the same country."

This is true of ANY country's elites. Bush's daughter with a teching job in latin america.The heirs to the U.K's monarchy doing grunt work for the army in Peru.Meanwhile, the heirs to fortunes in mining, telecom or media in latin america also turn their backs on fellow countrymen, helping out the needy in OTHER countries of course, not the proles that live in the same country.

I guess elites don't get the same warm fuzzy feeling of helping out proles in their own country, than they do those living very far from where they dwell.

Half Sigma, I agree with Charles Murray. The elite certainly dominate both political parties. I find the cultural values of the elite to be anathema and I would certainly not want to live in a community in which the values are set by our elite.

That being said, there are plenty of people in the US that are happy with the values of the elite. It seems to me that there should be true Federalism in which certain political units are run according to the social rules of 1950s America and certain other political units are run according to the social rules of the elites.

This sorting has already happened, to some extent. If you want to live a more traditional lifestyle, places like Delta, Utah, or Provo, Utah, or Colorado Springs offer this traditional lifestyle. These places should be able to maintain their own unique traditional lifestyle without encroachment from the elites.

At the same time, it is perfectly appropriate for the elites to dominate places like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The majority of the people in those cities want to live by the cultural rules of the elites.

As has been commented upon many times here, the elites seem to have fertility levels far below replacement levels. While non elites, whether the non elite are Mormon, or Evangelical Christian seem to have above replacement fertility.

It seems that both should be able to coexist well.

Don't forget that the current arrangement of society in Silicon Valley, in Hollywood, in Cambridge works well for the elite. The elite prefers to bring high IQ people like Yan Shen to live in their communities and work in their companies as opposed to non elite Americans.

Fundamentally, the elite created Google, they created apple, they created facebook. They should be allowed to staff up their companies with whoever they want.

It is clear that the elites would rather associate with high IQ Brahmins and with high IQ Korean immigrants instead of with low IQ redneck prole Americans. Who are we to force the elite to associate with the redneck proles?

At the same time, the proles in places like West Virginia should be free to propogate their culture their own way.


It seems to me that a general rule in our society is that the super high IQ super productive whites, the whites that create special things like Google or high technology or Hollywood movies that entertain the whole world want to live with high IQ people of all races. And also want to live with a good smattering of homosexual high IQ people.

It seems to me that the low IQ whites generally don't enjoy being around those with high IQ. Low IQ whites EITHER want to become super religious and associate with other super religious people, or they want to do prole things like Nascar and hunting. It seems to me that low IQ whites and high IQ whites naturally want to segregate out from each other.

That is fine with me, isn't America big enough for the low IQ whites to go live in totally separate cities from the high IQ whites?

"Murray has obviously seen the discussions of SWPLs on the internet, but he doesn’t give credit where credit is due."

I wonder if Murray reads "lower" HBD blogs. I'm fairly certain he reads Sailer (IIRC, they've had some exchanges back and forth), but does he go further into this blogosphere?

I know a mainstream guy like the Derb does read them, but does a guy slightly more establishment like Murray?

"I guess elites don't get the same warm fuzzy feeling of helping out proles in their own country, than they do those living very far from where they dwell."

You are correct!!!. White proles or underclass have sense of entitlement which pisses elites off. Some elites call that `white negro' mentality.

If you visit some third world country poors like
Cambodians, they are more gentle, grateful for any effort others offer. Who would like to help bunch arrogant underclass? A begger can not be arrogant. Arrogant begger is more like a criminal in the eyes of elites.

Yep. 70 or so years ago, it wasn't unheard of for proles to have really smart children, because some of the parents really were smart but never had the opportunity to go to college (and thus couldn't move up to the middle class.) The G.I. Bill really had a lot to do with changing that, because it separated the proles who were smart enough to graduate from college (but couldn't afford to do so) from those who weren't smart enough to graduate from college. Most of the ones who went to college wound up marrying and having children with women who went to college, so that meant that by the 1970s, there probably weren't a whole lot of proles left who were smart enough to graduate from college.

And moving up from the middle class has always been a crapshoot anyway.

I view SWPL types more as elitist wannabes than members of any elite.

WRT your other points:

1. This is absolutely true in government service, but I don't believe it's true any more in the private sector. It may be true in law, which would account for your perception.

2. Agree about elite parents being better able to game the system, disagree that IL degrees have the prestige they once had, again, except in the public sector.

3. Broadly true, but there are a lot of places where highly intelligent children from poor families can go to college at very low cost, and in any case it's where you go to grad school that matters immediately after graduation.

4. Definitely true. You don't even need to include "prole".

5. An oversimplification, but true to some extent, as long as the IL grad is maintaining social connections.

Point 1 is the key; while there are things going on in the private sector that irritate Tea Partiers, government is the real focus of their wrath, particularly government employees who appear to have a sense of entitlement based on credentials rather than achievement. This spills over into a contempt for academia as well for the same reason.

The best thing about that article is that Murray manages to get in a succinct explanation of what 'The Bell Curve' was about and a link to it.

I noticed a couple of scornful remarks about it in the comments section, but no real outrage.

"If you visit some third world country poors like
Cambodians, they are more gentle, grateful for any effort others offer."
Posted by: hm | October 25, 2010 at 05:11 PM

I would be interested to know who the Cambodian elite feel warm and fuzzy helping out. Perhaps on a UNICEF program with anyone except Cambodians ?

I think it's a human condition-- even animal -- that prevents elites from helping out their own underclass, as well as the underclass resenting their respective elites.

There are many examples I can cite throughout latin america. Many of the elites run a series of non-profits & fund-raisers, but even though the underclass can benefit from a series of initiatives, they see them with skepticism or resentment. Since they're run by the same people who hold the 'purse strings': The Elite.

Oh, but if the initiatives are done by American WASPs or French doctors, there isn't enough help to go around.

Again I feel the loop feeds of itself, why aren't WASPs helping more Americans who are in dire need or the French helping out in France ?

It's a mix of entitlement and resentment that makes elites help out the underclass or proles in other countries, as well as this same underclass or proles being open to receiving it as long as its not from their ruling class.

"Investment Bankers eat meat, drive BMWs, have Czech underwear model trophy wives, play sports, are tall (a majority of Fortune 500 CEOs are over 6 feet tall) and only consider themselves Christians because going to a non-prole non-Evangelical Church is a good way to socialize with other elites during holidays, and weddings, not because they want they think abortion is a sin and want to blow away abortion doctors."

1) "Investment bankers" ≠ "Fortune 500 CEOs". Neither are they the same as prop traders. Everyone who makes a lot of money isn't the same. If anything, there is more diversity (in terms of education, geographic, and other backgrounds) among Fortune 500 CEOs than among the other two groups.

2) The percentage of Christians (Evangelical or otherwise) who "want to blow away abortion doctors" must be infinitesimally small, considering that there are hundreds of millions of Christians in America, many of whom are armed, and fewer than 10 abortionists have been killed by opponents of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Many, many elite children do not do all that well. I live in this world. I know lots of partners at white shoe NY law firms, for example, and I know a sprinkling of investment bankers, and now that I'm 60, I see what happens to their kids.

Most of their children are not as successful as they are. Yes, a few go to Ivies, and follow in Dad's footsteps--but most can't make it (I think you would call it reversion to the mean), and end up in very middle-class lifestyles, happy eventually to get a teaching job, no matter how high powered Dad was. This may reflect the fact that in the present economy there are VERY few good jobs for anybody.

"Statistics falsely equate that someone with a degree from a directional state school and who makes $75,000/year working in sales is of the same social class as someone with a degree from an Ivy who makes $75,000/year working for a non-profit."

Now that I'm working in sales, I can absolutely, unconditionally assure you that the $75K salesman with the directional degree ***does not give a flying F-word*** that he may not be in the same social class as the Ivy degree holder working for the non-profit.

As usual an excellent post. I do, however, disagree w/ HS's thirp oint about even state schools being unaffordable to those lacking means. In FL, the state runs the "Bright Futures" scholarship for high school students. The top 10% of each and every high school's graduating class is granted a full tuition scholarship to any FL state school. The top 25% of every graduating high school class is granted a 75% scholarship. The scholarships are good for four years if the student maintains a B average. At the more competitive state schools, like the University of FL which only accepts the top 25% of high school grads, basically every student goes for free!

So, relatively high-IQ proles and NAMs can easily obtain these Bright Futures scholarships - they're only competing against the other dullards in their prole and NAM high schools.

Oh yea, the scholarships are fully funded by proceeds from the state lottery, which, in turn, is funded by proles and NAMs.

"Investment bankers are NOT SWPLs."

Well, they like to run marathons, so by HS' definition I guess they are.

American elites have always despised the American proles, and have always had a very different culture. Read Henry James. In the late 19th century the elites sent their children to Europe to be educated, and often even affected British accents. They listened to classical music and opera, not vaudeville. Then from the 1930s to the 1980s we lived through a time of income compression where the elites simply couldn't afford to distance themselves from the masses - the elites were heavily taxed, and there were plenty of economic opportunities for your average joe to join the middle class. Those days are gone. Welcome to the libertarian meritocratic paradise.

"I guess elites don't get the same warm fuzzy feeling of helping out proles in their own country, than they do those living very far from where they dwell."

Well, that certainly seems true after every natural disaster. I just finished watching tonight's national news about the cholera outbreak in Haiti. 2 million black Haitians, and a dozen white doctors from the US & Candada. Not a single black aid worker. (Same scenario matter what or where the disaster.)

HS,
Can a NAM without leadership activities,but with a really high SAT score(>2250) get into the Ivy League?

[HS: Absolutely. Leadership requirements are waived for black applicants.]

Also, I'd disagree with point 3. State schools are generally affordable, particularly if you're able to live at home (and thus save on the cost of room and board.) It's low enough, at least, that parents can save up to pay for their kids to go to college. That would be the difference; proles don't really see the value in a college education (or assume that their kids aren't going to college anyway) and hence don't save up for it.

"Now that I'm working in sales, I can absolutely, unconditionally assure you that the $75K salesman with the directional degree ***does not give a flying F-word*** that he may not be in the same social class as the Ivy degree holder working for the non-profit."

People who have the opportunity to earn lots of money generally don't obsess about class. Class obsessions are more common among highly educated/credentialed people in low-paying jobs, for obvious reasons.

The utmost test of eliteness is whether you spend most of your time around people with college degrees. Whom do you live around? Whom do you associate with in your job? Who are the parents of the other kids your kids go to school with?

Anyone who disagrees, sell me on a better test.

I can´t say that I thought that the op-ed was hard to follow. On the contrary, the message was simple:

We have a new, more meritocratic elite, that is different to the old elites in several ways, especially in that it looks down on the rest of the country in different ways compared to the old elites.

(The elite usually looks down on the masses - that´s sort of the point of an elite. But the elite can take care of the looking down in different ways...)

The interesting follow-up is to discuss which particular biases and preferences that twist the world-view of this particular elite.

"based more on leadership traits"

And from the state of our society and the self-satisfaction of the ruling class, I know that the USA is the best-lead society in the world, and lead by the best and the brightest. Praise Yale and Harvard for the paradise their grads have made for us!

Our leaders, our best and brightest, are proof there is no such thing as leadership, or knowledge in the social sciences.

[HS: Your assuming the goal of our leaders is to make America economically powerful. In fact, the real goal is to make America more "diverse," and they are succeeding pretty well.]

["I view SWPL types more as elitist wannabes than members of any elite."]

I agree. The goofy guy with indie band t-shirt at Starbucks is not elite, or on his way there. SWPL'ism is either a phase twenty-somethings go through, or an affectation of thirty/forty-year-old professionals.

Non-profit work is something women with rich parents or husbands do. Men connected to non-profits generally consult for them as otherwise-high-earning professionals.

[Welcome to the libertarian meritocratic paradise.]

Not sure it's much of a paradise for the elites, or at least their children, given that they soon will be in the same boat as us middle-classers, not being able to leave home and dash into a convenience store without seeing a fat, glowering foreigner rather than a pretty girl behind the cash register.

Sheila, it has to be more than that. I'd say if most of the people you know went to Ivy or equivalent schools or T14 law schools or top business schools. A bunch of people working in sales who graduated from a mediocre state flagship aren't elite, right?

[HS: Such people are middle class, not elite, not prole.]

"Sheila, it has to be more than that. I'd say if most of the people you know went to Ivy or equivalent schools or T14 law schools or top business schools. A bunch of people working in sales who graduated from a mediocre state flagship aren't elite, right?"

Ah, but Jack. In my experience, people who graduate from the mediocre places will spend their lives working and living around plenty of other people without even those mediocre degrees. It is only the elite whose society is restricted to the college-educated.

I haven't read all the comments yet so this may be redundant, but I think it's relevant to HS's point about social mobility circa 1960 versus the present that back then (and prior from the turn of the last century) the prole population included European immigrants, and first to second generation descendants thereof, previously excluded by the WASP elite (Irish Italian and Easter-Eu Jewish), who had IQ to be culled. Not at all the case with post-1965 immigrant populations. Even with rampant affirmative-A, there's little to nothing there.

This post was too interesting not to comment on, while the probability of upward mobility has vastly decreased (many others and I have also previously mentioned this) Harvard still sends the children of certain families who make under $40,000 a year free. Although some private secondary schools still give children whose parents make under $150,000 a year financial aid.

"For starters, the prole class has been culled of its smartest members, so today, a lower percentage of prole children have high-IQs than was the case sixty years ago. This creates the statistical illusion of less social mobility. "
- Half Sigma

I think that television and the perpetuation of massive low-culture is to blame. People are still people, but those who have institutional power have vested interests in keeping certain people dumbed down to switch roles between father/husband, employee, and consumer. Instead of listening to Hector Berlioz and studying the human tradition, such people read poor-quality magazines. I suspect that many, if not most, have not heard of the Rococo decorative style, or know that Greek revival replaced it.

If a person mentioned Francis Bacon to a prole, a possible answer might be “His artwork good according to whom exactly?” A question I myself ask, the point being they would probably be unfamiliar with Sir Francis Bacon of The New Atlantis fame.

"(1) Moving up in the meritocracy is more credentials-based than it ever was.

(2) Access to the best credentials (Ivy League degrees) is, every year, based more on leadership traits than it is on raw intellect as demonstrated by a high score on the SAT. As I have explained before, the leadership-based admissions process is better gamed by parents who are currently members of the elite. "
-Half Sigma

This is what I have meant by certain people acting as gatekeepers for institutional power and positions. Many people know that if someone is in power that they should have a good reason for doing so. Many such false pretenses and justifications are made, such as the gilded ticket of eugenics offering the excuse of "superior genes", and the so-called "divine hierarchy" before that.

If one's vast holdings of cultural, economic, and social capital could be spent in some rigged game, then people would seek to reform such a system, whereas the myth of a classless society is useful, because underprivileged police officers and factory workers (and other blue-collar workers) will take self-responsibility and blame themselves for their positions instead the inferior "culture" that is forced onto them and the system.


"only consider themselves Christians because going to a non-prole non-Evangelical Church is a good way to socialize with other elites during holidays, and weddings, not because they want they think abortion is a sin and want to blow away abortion doctors."
-The Undiscovered Jew

And because of the baptism technicality. I am technically Episcopalian, but am actual an atheist. Additionally, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Methodist spiritual leaders typically have gone to a respectable divinity school whereas evangelical preachers at best went to a backwater seminary.

"but both types of SWPL like sushi and degrees from Ivy League schools and neither type of SWPL would take a vacation to visit the heartland of America in an RV."
-Half Sigma

That is because sushi (and fugu, and soba, and French/Japanese fusion. A person cannot go wrong with foie gras served with brie and fugu or octopus, etc.) is delicious, and the Ivy League is a centuries-old American tradition, of which most Americans are proud.

People come from all over the world to attend the Ivies (and our elite boarding schools like Exeter and Choate for secondary), and they touch the statue of John Harvard's urine-covered feet. Furthermore, most Americans are proud of the cultural, scientific, and social contributions of Ivy League graduates. The Ivy League is deeply rooted in American history, and is an invaluable asset in making the world and America great.

The comments to this entry are closed.