« Mitt Romney on education | Main | Jews are NOT to blame for vegetarianism »

February 10, 2012

Comments

Precisely, and I think this is the core phenomenon at play causing the differences between Charles Murray's "Belmont" and "Fishtown." That and cultural norms such as the sexual revolution.

"The ironic result of a meritocratic society is that the poor are a lot stupider and represent the genetic garbage of society."

That's some hard talk there, geez. But at least they can say it is not their fault. I guess that then means they are entitled to a assistance from Uncle Sam, since they aren't necessarily being lazy or the like. Moreover, I have more respect for the Walmart cashier at Target than a lot of the finance guys.

the irony is that so many of the policies floated by the right are perpetuating the problem. the left, on the other hand, can't be honest about why some of theirs make sense in the context of dysgenic pressure.

"the left, on the other hand, can't be honest about why some of theirs make sense in the context of dysgenic pressure."

Which ones of those make sense? Their policy of bringing in millions of these stupid, genetic garbage people from the Third World? Their policy of wasting money trying to educate the stupid genetic garbage? Their policy of excusing every failure and social pathology of the stupid genetic garbage as the product of the smart folks being evil and racist?

If you ask me, it's the left who is perpetuating the problem, not the right. The right is too chicken to be honest about it because they're afraid of being called racists.

An equally interesting question are what traits are lost by the assortive mating for cognitive ability. In some circles there may be an overall Eugenic approach, but I suspect it is not always as well rounded as we would think.

"An equally interesting question are what traits are lost by the assortive mating for cognitive ability."

I don't know about traits, but there are some pretty nasty mental disorders associated with high average IQ in Ashkenazi Jews, e.g. an increased risk of Tay-Sachs disease.

Re your remark about false claims of a closing BW gap, here is a homework assignment from a class I teach on biology and society:

"There was widespread dissatisfaction with a widely given qualification test in which 60% of group A passed and 30% of group B. Use the normal table above to verify that the threshold for passing was -0.25 standard deviations from the mean of population A, assuming the scores were normally distributed. Now assume that group B’s scores are also normal, with the same standard deviation as those of group A but with a different mean. Since only 30% of group B passed, the threshold corresponds to 0.52 standard deviations on the group B distribution. We conclude that the difference between the means of group A and B is 0.77 standard deviations."

"The education establishment responded by making the test easier. With the new test 90% of group A passed and 70% of group B. There was pride in their announcement that the group gap had declined from 30% (60-30) to 20% (90-70) along with promises that the gap was rapidly closing. But what is the implied difference between the group means using the new data? You should find that nothing at all has changed."

Here's a simple example of how income based IQ stratification has changed. My father was an orphan. My mothers side came over here because they were resistance leaders in the Irish resistance and had to flee to America. So both sides, either because of chance or persecution, had to start over from the bottom not to many generations ago. Each generation they have improved, and I'm upper middle class now.

OT, but Ann Couter in her column this week makes the statement that the Democrats in congress are opposed to a wealth tax because this would effect them much more than an increase in income tax rates.

Did you read the comments section on the article, HS? Its as usual a complete laugh, with a grand total of 1 poster actually bringing up IQ stratification of society. The rest talk about the "tragedy" of it all, and how "unfair" it is that we can't throw more money at the problem. Its amazing the level of denial there is in the world about the realities of HBD. No wonder poor guys like James Watson get demolished when they speak the truth.

Am not sure about the propriety of referring to people as "genetic garbage," but there are forces at work, I suspect, that will produce unintended consequences.

How extreme selection for cognitive ability plays out (as someone else points out, what is lost in this sort of scheme is unknown) remains to be seen. Though mere science fiction, several dystopian novels exist on the subject. One hopes that the cognitive elite will not come to resemble the Eloi, for example.

Also, as Charles Murray pointed out in the Bell Curve, demographic forces (there are more "dumb" people, they are having more children and at shorter generational intervals) could be catastrophic. Will those at the bottom become essentially wards of the state? What are the ramifications for an ostensibly democratic country like the US, where an increasing number of people who pay little to nothing for services that they disproportionately want (need?) avail themselves of the one-man, one-vote principle? Will we come to the infamous two wolves, one sheep vote for dinner parable?

The sad thing is that the smart black kids suffer the most...

[HS: Smart black kids are the biggest winners in the current system. The biggest losers are prole white kids who are born smarter than their parents--the system doesn't care about them.]

It's hard to frame any of these gaps as being the result of merit because a huge factor influencing it is largely out of anyone's control. It's just a new way to play the genetic lottery game.

Why don't smart young people have more kids? I'm very smart, and so is my husband, and we have 3 kids in their 20's, and one grand-child, and I see no indication that we'll ever have more. The reason,I think, is that our kids are too hedonistic, scared of commitment, self-absorbed. We tried to raise them right, but I don't think we succeeded.

I worry about our society's future, seeing today's young people. I would hate to look at the reproduction rates of Ivy League graduates, for example. I bet it's miniscule.

I have white prole relatives. And they have more children, earlier. Eventually, they even get married.

Assortative mating and de facto castes explained more in depth by Harpending on West Hunter: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/class-caste-and-genes/

@ Park Slope Pubby

Millennials are the first western generation to grow up under a matriarchy. I highly recommend The Garbage Generation.

http://fisheaters.com/gb2.html

"Why don't smart young people have more kids? I'm very smart, and so is my husband, and we have 3 kids in their 20's, and one grand-child, and I see no indication that we'll ever have more. The reason,I think, is that our kids are too hedonistic, scared of commitment, self-absorbed. We tried to raise them right, but I don't think we succeeded."

Smart young people tend to live in cities that are expensive (i.e. NYC), which discourages having children. You're not going to raise children in a one-bedroom apartment -- and it's ridiculously expensive to get a detached house in the city. Throw in the cost of private schools (which, for most city-dwellers, are a necessity) and having children becomes prohibitively expensive.

Well, smart young people tend to live in environments that are not conducive to having children (i.e. NYC.) It's hellaciously expensive even to live alone in most of the places that smart young people live, much less raise children.

This changes in the educational achievement gap make perfect sense if one looks at the changes in economic incentives for both the top 10% and the bottom 10%. For the top portion of the population, there is has been a huge increase in compensation for very top jobs, so it makes sense that there is much tougher competition among the elite for these jobs. As a result test scores go up as the credentials to have access to these top jobs become more and more difficult to obtain. In the Sixties the difference between a top 10% and 10%-20% bracket job would have been much less than it is today and so it didn’t make as much sense for the upper classes to put in Herculean efforts just to be in the top 10%.

For the bottom 10%, back in the early Sixties, you starved if you did not have a job so there was a huge incentive for everyone to attain some minimal educational standard. Now the bottom 10% know they can always fall back on welfare, food stamps, crime, and then jail, so there is not much incentive to go beyond say a third grade education, and so as a result this pushes their test scores down.

"Am not sure about the propriety of referring to people as "genetic garbage," but there are forces at work, I suspect, that will produce unintended consequences."

MLK forbid that we use that horrid term! Let's call them victims. The Victims of WIC (and Section 8, publik edumakashun, raysism, da police, etc...) Unintended consequences like Detroit and riots over Air Jordans will be next, I tell you!

"Which ones of those make sense? Their policy of bringing in millions of these stupid, genetic garbage people from the Third World? Their policy of wasting money trying to educate the stupid genetic garbage? Their policy of excusing every failure and social pathology of the stupid genetic garbage as the product of the smart folks being evil and racist?

If you ask me, it's the left who is perpetuating the problem, not the right. The right is too chicken to be honest about it because they're afraid of being called racists."

I figured it was obvious. abortion and free birth control.

Torn and Frayed,

Leading on this, kids are a drag on smart people competing for the top spots. A massive drag for women, a bit of a drag for men too. Nobody wants to have kids until they feel they are well on an elite career track.

Companies used to solve this issue by favoring family men for promotion. However, now that more ephemeral tech based skills have become wealth drivers companies want young people, not old people. By the time you are 40 your a net productivity drag. Most importantly they want young single people who won't bat an eye at working 80 hour weeks because there is no one waiting at home.

"Why don't smart young people have more kids?"

I'll add to TC's response that perhaps smart young people are nervous about the stability of their jobs/incomes. Some of them may also be aware of the possibility that in the future a large proportion of even middle class jobs will be automated or outsourced, and they might not want to bring children into a potential life of poverty and despair.

@Park Slope Pubby:

"The reason,I think, is that our kids are too hedonistic, scared of commitment, self-absorbed. We tried to raise them right, but I don't think we succeeded."

Well you can breathe easy. The way your kids turned out has nothing to do with what you did and did not do, since parents don't have a lasting influence on how their kids turn out:

http://jayman.blog.com/2011/11/16/taming-the-tiger-mom-and-tackling-the-parenting-myth/

@ Park Slope:

Smart young people don't have kids because they realize that they can't support them. This means that they will likely have fewer kids as they get older due to fertility issues, or the kids that they do have will have major birth defects.

Stupid young people of all stripes have children because they don't know any better.

@ Park Slope:

Smart young people don't have kids because they realize that they can't support them. This means that they will likely have fewer kids as they get older due to fertility issues, or the kids that they do have will have major birth defects.

Stupid young people of all stripes have children because they don't know any better.

"I figured it was obvious. abortion and free birth control.--

How's that working out?

"The ironic result of a meritocratic society is that the poor are a lot stupider and represent the genetic garbage of society."

----------------------------------------------------

I have the feeling Half Sigma favors the final solution to the prole problem advocated by the Dead Kennedys in "Kill the Poor," only he's not being caustically satirical about the idea as they were.

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

"the left, on the other hand, can't be honest about why some of theirs make sense in the context of dysgenic pressure."

"Which ones of those make sense? Their policy of bringing in millions of these stupid, genetic garbage people from the Third World? Their policy of wasting money trying to educate the stupid genetic garbage?"

The left wants free birth control for the poor. If immigrants can be taught not to breed then the wage slaves we import don't leave much legacy. Notice Planned Parenthood's super white CEO has four kids. She is selling contraception/abortion more than buying it. I think the left is annoyed that their own do too much practicing and too little preaching when it comes to population control. Gore is the quintessential phony leftist. He preaches conservation. He doesn't practice it. Duh. Maybe the spendthrift lefties hope that folks will get so disgusted with how much it costs to "educate" and incarcerate and otherwise service NAM's that they will get with the program and push contraceptives and abortion like true believers. Planned Parenthood was always about eugenics. They just can't say that directly anymore.

"Some of them may also be aware of the possibility that in the future a large proportion of even middle class jobs will be automated or outsourced, and they might not want to bring children into a potential life of poverty and despair."


What poverty and despair? You mean air conditioned apartments with , electricity and plumbing and free public education, video games and free food if you don't work?

No, you mean living with violent NAM's and proles.

"Why don't smart young people have more kids? I'm very smart, and so is my husband, and we have 3 kids in their 20's, and one grand-child, and I see no indication that we'll ever have more. The reason,I think, is that our kids are too hedonistic, scared of commitment, self-absorbed. We tried to raise them right, but I don't think we succeeded."


LOL!!!!

Because they are working to pay for your SS and Medicare!!!

Try this. Buy each of your kids a house. Just use the money you saved for your retirement. And tell them, it would be great if they would have some grandkids for you. Get back to us in ten years.

'MLK forbid that we use that horrid term! Let's call them victims.'

They sort of are. You didn't earn any of your genetic advantages over them. You just happened to get lucky.

In the UK there is much hand wringing amongst mainstream politicians and the media about the lack of social mobility. But surely the reason there is less social mobility these days is simply because all the moving up and down in social class has taken place with all the opportunities in education over the last 60 years. With all the opportunities that young white English people have these days in education and training, if they are still unemployable then there must be something wrong with them. They talk about the "poor" not being able to get into university - bloody good job - they are generally as thick as shit. As a teacher for 30 years, I have known 2 cases of young people of extremely high intelligence, where there abilities has not, at least at that time, been noticed by anyone except me. Both of them were the children of poor Chinese immigrants who could speak little English.

Posted by: Insider | February 14, 2012 at 02:23 PM

Your comment is sort of convincing.

I attended an academic seminar where Sean Reardon(the Stanford sociologist mentioned in the article) presented his research and hypothesized on the reasons why the gap existed. There were a lot of leftist academics hanging on to his every word.

He mentioned assortative mating but only in the environmental sense. I asked him about the possibility of genetic influences and assortative mating in the genetic sense and all I received was a stunned look from him and a weak response. Pretty much this sector of academia is treating the possibility of genetic causes of any "gaps" as impossibilities. Genetics cannot be a factor because politics demands equality.

The comments to this entry are closed.