Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?

[tupac chopra]

You sound pretty sure that it will happen though.

Yes, a scientific development will convince the world. I will convince hardly anyone.

What if this "development" shows the opposite to your belief?

 

[tupac chopra]

specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.

- Charles Murray

The civil rights movement was based on the assumption that black deficiencies were caused by racial discrimination

Such as sister Rosa not being able to sit in a certain seat in the bus? Quite a deficiency!

 

[Canard DuJour]

Canard DuJour, the article you meant to link to is here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

The correction note at the end is telling:

CORRECTION: In his December 17th piece, “None of the Above,” Malcolm Gladwell states that Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in their 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” proposed that Americans with low I.Q.s be “sequestered in a ‘high-tech’ version of an Indian reservation.” In fact, Herrnstein and Murray deplored the prospect of such “custodialism” and recommended that steps be taken to avert it. We regret the error.

Yes it tells us that either Gladwell or some editor is prepared to admit an honest mistake. It says nothing about the Flynn effect or its implications.

Could have been worse of course, as most of those who slander such authors never get around to issuing a correction. I generally agree with the points about the Flynn effect (a term coined by Herrnstein and Murray).

Well that's strange because it means most of what you keep declaring to be "proven" and "undeniable", isn't.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, a scientific development will convince the world. I will convince hardly anyone.

What if this "development" shows the opposite to your belief?

Then I will change my belief.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes it tells us that either Gladwell or some editor is prepared to admit an honest mistake. It says nothing about the Flynn effect or its implications.

Could have been worse of course, as most of those who slander such authors never get around to issuing a correction. I generally agree with the points about the Flynn effect (a term coined by Herrnstein and Murray).

Well that's strange because it means most of what you keep declaring to be "proven" and "undeniable", isn't.

My position is like other hereditarians on the issue. The variations in IQ are MOSTLY due to genetics. Mostly. This is a moderate position, and it means there is room for environmental effects, as in the Flynn Effect. There is nobody who thinks IQ variations are COMPLETELY genetic. It may be a misperception, because maybe it is a projection of what the anti-racist scientific Marxists (or environmentalists) such as Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin believe. They believe that IQ variations are COMPLETELY environmental; genetic variations have absolutely NOTHING to do with it. It is a position most drastically at odds with the evidence. It is popular among the public, but it is a fringe position in psychology. You may think that hereditarians simply believe in the opposite of what they believe. Not so.

 

[ApostateAbe]

specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.

- Charles Murray

The civil rights movement was based on the assumption that black deficiencies were caused by racial discrimination, and that when the discrimination ended the deficiencies would end.

The war on poverty was based on the assumption that the poor are the same as everyone else, only less fortunate.

Both of these efforts have yielded disappointing results because the assumptions they were based on are not true.

It would be unwise to repeal the civil rights legislation. Nevertheless, it should be interpreted narrowly enough to prohibit affirmative action policies and forced school busing.

In addition we should have a real conversation on race. Geneticists should be able to discuss what they have learned about the human genome, and the genetic basis for racial differences. Criminologists should be able to discuss what they have learned about racial differences in crime rates. Sociologists should be able to describe the moral chaos of the black ghetto. People of all races should be able to discuss how they really feel about people of other races. They should be able to discuss good and bad experiences they have had with people of other races.

In other words, the restrictions of political correctness should come to an end.

I don't know what your criteria is, but this to me isn't a disappointing result. It suggests there is still more gain to be had (we have not yet seen the limit of the possible gains), even if scientific racism is true:

[...]

The image looks hopeful, because the college enrollment gap between whites and blacks is narrowing. However, it is misleading, because the white-black GRADUATION gap remains high.

Both images come from this article:

Race Gap Narrows in College Enrollment, But Not in Graduation

Affirmative action is widely practiced among college admissions offices, giving disadvantaged minority groups an extra edge in spite of lower average qualifications (test scores and high school grades), but affirmative action is NOT practiced in graduation requirements, and meeting those requirements is likewise highly dependent on general intelligence. It is a clear example of where the environmentalist theory has failed in its prediction and hereditarian theory has succeeded.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, a scientific development will convince the world. I will convince hardly anyone.

So exactly how scientifically predictive is this scientific racism? I mean, can someone knowing only a person's race predict their intelligence, their job performance, their earning capacity? How accurately?
If I know the average of people like you, how well does that apply to you?

 

[bleubird]

Abe,all this may interesting on an academic level,but not too helpful in the real world.I am going to bet that I deal with a lot more people on a daily basis than most. Environment,home life,parents,economics seem to to be more of a factor of success than who your great grand daddy was.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, a scientific development will convince the world. I will convince hardly anyone.

So exactly how scientifically predictive is this scientific racism? I mean, can someone knowing only a person's race predict their intelligence, their job performance, their earning capacity? How accurately?
If I know the average of people like you, how well does that apply to you?

Scientific racism (even if that means just being realistic about the rote stats and ignoring heritability assertions) is most predictive about POPULATIONS relative to other populations, i.e. the position of the peak of the bell curve for one race relative to the peak of the bell curve for another race, or the width of the right tail end at +2 SD for one race relative to another's. We can make predictions about individuals, too, but they are much more probabilistic. For example, there is a 63% chance that a randomly-chosen American black man has an IQ of 85 plus or minus 15, and there is a 63% chance that a randomly-chosen Ashkenazi Jew has an IQ of 110 plus or minus 15. For people like you and me who are at the right tail-ends of our respective racial bell curves, those predictions will fail. But, they do matter uncomfortably for such things as hiring patterns.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Abe,all this may interesting on an academic level,but not too helpful in the real world.I am going to bet that I deal with a lot more people on a daily basis than most. Environment,home life,parents,economics seem to to be more of a factor of success than who your great grand daddy was.

Yes, and I respect that. The topic affects probabilities when on an individual level, but some people will take it too far and take it to mean that ALL people of one race are smarter or dumber than ALL people of another race. I think we need to expect that when and if scientific racism becomes popular again.

 

[bleubird]

And,Abe how would you judge my father? He had an eighth grade education in rural Iowa in the 20 and 30's than did WWII like most of his generation.He was a machinist mate.Than after the war went back to school after work after some kids.Became a master machinist for 30 plus years.Could add fractions to the 1/64 in his head.Could visualize 3d stuff an make it.How would he score on your IQ test?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I mean, can someone knowing only a person's race predict their intelligence, their job performance, their earning capacity?

Scientific racism (even if that means just being realistic about the rote stats and ignoring heritability assertions) is most predictive about POPULATIONS relative to other populations, i.e. the position of the peak of the bell curve for one race relative to the peak of the bell curve for another race, or the width of the right tail end at +2 SD for one race relative to another's.

Then I doubt it's ever going to have much impact.
You'll never find a big enough population of any race that's free of all the other possible explanations for their performance in order to actually establish that a certain gene or collection of genes is the or even that much of a factor.

Studies will be subject to the same criticism applied to every other attempt to establish support for treating people who look different as different.

So in the end, it'll always be simply scientific racism.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And,Abe how would you judge my father? He had an eighth grade education in rural Iowa in the 20 and 30's than did WWII like most of his generation.He was a machinist mate.Than after the war went back to school after work after some kids.Became a master machinist for 30 plus years.Could add fractions to the 1/64 in his head.Could visualize 3d stuff an make it.How would he score on your IQ test?

What would the specifics of a single individual have to do with the distribution of results amongst a population as a whole?

 

[ApostateAbe]

And,Abe how would you judge my father? He had an eighth grade education in rural Iowa in the 20 and 30's than did WWII like most of his generation.He was a machinist mate.Than after the war went back to school after work after some kids.Became a master machinist for 30 plus years.Could add fractions to the 1/64 in his head.Could visualize 3d stuff an make it.How would he score on your IQ test?

I can only guess. 120?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Scientific racism (even if that means just being realistic about the rote stats and ignoring heritability assertions) is most predictive about POPULATIONS relative to other populations, i.e. the position of the peak of the bell curve for one race relative to the peak of the bell curve for another race, or the width of the right tail end at +2 SD for one race relative to another's.

Then I doubt it's ever going to have much impact.
You'll never find a big enough population of any race that's free of all the other possible explanations for their performance in order to actually establish that a certain gene or collection of genes is the or even that much of a factor.

Studies will be subject to the same criticism applied to every other attempt to establish support for treating people who look different as different.

So in the end, it'll always be simply scientific racism.

I explained more fully in the part of my post that you deleted. It really is relevant. Don't narrow your thinking to absolutes. Population predictions matter, and so do probabilistic predictions on an individual level.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Then I doubt it's ever going to have much impact.
You'll never find a big enough population of any race that's free of all the other possible explanations for their performance in order to actually establish that a certain gene or collection of genes is the or even that much of a factor.

Studies will be subject to the same criticism applied to every other attempt to establish support for treating people who look different as different.

So in the end, it'll always be simply scientific racism.

I explained more fully in the part of my post that you deleted. It really is relevant. Don't narrow your thinking to absolutes. Population predictions matter, and so do probabilistic predictions on an individual level.

How much do they matter and in what way do they and do they matter without policy and history to influence them?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I explained more fully in the part of my post that you deleted. It really is relevant. .

But you still won't be able to show that you're projecting racial genetics rather than other factors.
I really doubt researchers will ever be able to isolate the genetics well enough to actually substantiate that it's the genetics.

 

[bleubird]

And,Abe how would you judge my father? He had an eighth grade education in rural Iowa in the 20 and 30's than did WWII like most of his generation.He was a machinist mate.Than after the war went back to school after work after some kids.Became a master machinist for 30 plus years.Could add fractions to the 1/64 in his head.Could visualize 3d stuff an make it.How would he score on your IQ test?

What would the specifics of a single individual have to do with the distribution of results amongst a population as a whole?

.My father was one of may be a million men.But i think to make generalizations about the his life is valid based on my biased observations of his generation."they may not be book smart,but they built Industrial USA.One sweaty,bloody hand at a time

 

[bleubird]

And,Abe how would you judge my father? He had an eighth grade education in rural Iowa in the 20 and 30's than did WWII like most of his generation.He was a machinist mate.Than after the war went back to school after work after some kids.Became a master machinist for 30 plus years.Could add fractions to the 1/64 in his head.Could visualize 3d stuff an make it.How would he score on your IQ test?

I can only guess. 120?

He was a good teacher as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One quick thought - if employers value IQ, then why would they ever use race as a proxy for IQ, a horribly unreliable method even if scientific racism is true? Why not just require the applicant to submit a validated IQ score from an accredited testing agency? Why wouldn't employers push colleges to administer these tests as regular routine if the info is valuable?

In the USA, private hiring based on a general intelligence test is illegal, per the Griggs vs. Dukes Power supreme court decision. The court believed that such tests could easily be an excuse for racial discrimination, since blacks tend to score so much lower. So, of course now the main hiring requirement in technical professions rests on higher education, in which colleges admit largely based on a general intelligence score, and the racial inequalities are even worse. Griggs vs. Dukes Power needs to be overturned, and that requires the thinking public having a rational perspective of the social significance of intelligence.

At the time Griggs vs Dukes Power made sense--companies were using such testing as a means of discrimination. As with the rest of AA it's way outlived it's purpose.