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

[Togo]

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.
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,

Meh, not really. There's a lot of evidence for environmental effects, which that position would need to discount as significant contributors. So it's actually a position at the extreme end of the scale.

and it means there is room for environmental effects, as in the Flynn Effect.

Not really. The problem with the Flynn effect, and other documented environmental effects, is that they're not small. Your position doesn't leave enough room for the Flynn effect - you end up needing to discount a lot of it in some way.

They believe that IQ variations are COMPLETELY environmental; genetic variations have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

No, they don't. Gould wrote about genetic effects extensively - it's the basis for some of his criticisms of the statistical methods used in the hereditarian approach.

but it is a fringe position in psychology.

Well, yes and no. The most common position in psychology is that IQ is fairly irrelevant to human behaviour - most psychologists, an overwhelming number, study human behaviour without referencing it at all. Of those who have decided to dedicate a portion of their careers to this subject, yes, a fair number of them see it as saying something significant about the groups studied than not, but that's still a minority overall. It's like how there are always more religious people than active religious sceptics - because most people who don't believe in a religion don't end up discussing it at all.

You may think that hereditarians simply believe in the opposite of what they believe.

No that's the mistake you make with those who emphasise environmental factors. As a general principle, you can't both call yourself a moderate, and condemn everyone who disagrees with you as Marxists. You need to chose one or the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can these observations be made of population groups from 2,000 to 10,000 years ago? We know about the advances made in population groups across the globe in mathematics and astronomy. That would be a good primer for determining if race is involved with intelligence. It'd be more void of so much societal and economic scatter in today's world.

 

[ronburgundy]

Science never dictates policy, values do. Suppose that African Americans had genetically-based lower general intelligence on average than European Americans (note that this could be do to race-level differences, or to that these are both non-representative sub-populations of their races, each created via very different "sampling" methods).

Suppose this difference in general intelligence led to differences in school achievement and thus to income inequality and thus to many other inequalities including crime rates and political power that income impacts.

What should we about that? That question is only answered by subjective values and ethics that have little to do with science. We could embrace the naturalistic fallacy and decide to have policies that preserved or enhanced this "natural order", or we could do the exact opposite and have policies that give more help and assistance to the less intelligent (which would mean disproportionately more helps to blacks) with the goal of making up for their disadvantage of lower intelligence which is just bad luck of what they were born into and zero fault of their own. The latter approach could be motivated either out of empathy or more directly self-serving goals of enhancing societal stability by reducing group level inequalities in important dimensions that will inherently create social tensions and discord, regardless of the underlying causes of those inequalities.

Understanding scientific reality is not what makes things better. Wanting to make things better is what makes things better. Accurate knowledge merely serves as a tool to more efficiently make things better or worse (case in point, nuclear weapons) depending on one's subjective values and ethics.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

You are posting only descriptive statistics, not predictive. Just because it rained once in the last 10 days does not mean that the probability of rain tomorrow is 1/10.

aa

 

[ApostateAbe]

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?

The causes of the variations in intelligence, especially if they are merely environmental, are intimately tied to solving the problems--narrowing the gaps and raising the intelligence of EVERYONE. Such solutions would intimately tie into solving so many other social problems in the world, very often correlated with intelligence. For example, one extreme environmentalist proponent I read (Jefferson M. Fish) has proposed that the main reason that there is a stronger correlation of IQ between identical twins reared apart than between fraternal twins reared together is NOT because of 50% more shared genes but because fraternal twins have two different placentas! If this is true, then there is a Nobel Prize to be won. Maybe we can raise the intelligence of all babies by injecting more nutrients into all placentas, or something similar. If the causes of the intelligence gaps really are genetic, then it is less hopeful, but we will know where to focus our efforts in the long term. We probably should be looking at genetic engineering, in my opinion.

 

[Trodon]

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:

Increased black college enrollment rates prove little, because many of those black college students got into college because of affirmative action policies. Also, as many as two thirds of colleges accept anyone with a high school degree and tuition money.

The following chart demonstrates that the race gap in average SAT scores has widened between whites and blacks since the school year of 1986-87.

http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=171

The failures of No Child Left Behind and Head Start provide additional evidence of the durability of the race gap in average intelligence, and consequently of its genetic origins.

 

[Trodon]

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.

The hiring decision is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, and who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company. Some bosses do not like blacks. Some bosses do not like homosexuals. Some bosses do not like Jews. Some bosses do not like Orientals. A boss who refuses to hire homosexuals, Jews, and/or Orientals will lose talented people to competitors. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

The hiring decision is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, and who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company. Some bosses do not like blacks. Some bosses do not like homosexuals. Some bosses do not like Jews. Some bosses do not like Orientals. A boss who refuses to hire homosexuals, Jews, and/or Orientals will lose talented people to competitors. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

And you know this how?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The hiring decision is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, and who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company. Some bosses do not like blacks. Some bosses do not like homosexuals. Some bosses do not like Jews. Some bosses do not like Orientals. A boss who refuses to hire homosexuals, Jews, and/or Orientals will lose talented people to competitors. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

Please explain North Korea's failure on the global stage in economics and technology. That nation consists almost exclusively of "Orientals".

 

[ksen]

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.

The hiring decision is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, and who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company. Some bosses do not like blacks. Some bosses do not like homosexuals. Some bosses do not like Jews. Some bosses do not like Orientals. A boss who refuses to hire homosexuals, Jews, and/or Orientals will lose talented people to competitors. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

good lord

 

[Axulus]

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.

Has the graduation gap narrowed? My position is that we have not seen the limits in the narrowing of the various achievement gaps. We should keep working on narrowing it until the evidence demonstrates an extended period of stagnation in the size of the gap.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Has the graduation gap narrowed? My position is that we have not seen the limits in the narrowing of the various achievement gaps. We should keep working on narrowing it until the evidence demonstrates an extended period of stagnation in the size of the gap.

The college graduation gap has not narrowed at all and is actually widening.

Note that I don't buy Abe's argument that this supports biological differences, because it is completely agnostic on that issue. Abe is correct that AA policies are likely responsible for a narrowing enrollment gap but widening graduation gap. However, this is perfectly compatible with environmental accounts. Environment (everything for poor fetal nutrition to underfunded schools and community stressors like gang wars fueled by drug policies), put blacks at a disadvantage and make them less prepared for college. AA policies allow people who are not prepared for college to get into college, if they are of an under-represented race, thus these groups drop/fail out at higher rates.

It isn't at all clear the AA admission policies can claim any of the positives.
Most of the additional blacks entering college now that were not 30 years ago, are doing so without any aid from AA policies. They are doing so for the same reasons that more whites also enter college than 30 years ago. These students are the one's most likely to graduate and thus benefit themselves as well as being positive role models for other kids. AA admissions policies only increase the enrollment of blacks that wouldn't qualify otherwise, and thus are more likely drop/fail out than to graduate, thus harming both themselves (via debt) and serving as a negative role model that increases the "why bother" attitudes among others. Other AA policies that target young kids and actually help them get intellectually and socially ready for higher education are a different story, and likley doing good. However, it is quite plausible that AA college admission policies are causing more harm by increasing the graduation gap and pointless debt than the positives they do by increasing enrollment of minority students, some who do graduate, but most who do not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Increased black college enrollment rates prove little, because many of those black college students got into college because of affirmative action policies. Also, as many as two thirds of colleges accept anyone with a high school degree and tuition money.

The following chart demonstrates that the race gap in average SAT scores has widened between whites and blacks since the school year of 1986-87.

http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=171

The failures of No Child Left Behind and Head Start provide additional evidence of the durability of the race gap in average intelligence, and consequently of its genetic origins.

Increased enrollment means nothing. What we should look at is degrees.

 

[arkirk]

Increased black college enrollment rates prove little, because many of those black college students got into college because of affirmative action policies. Also, as many as two thirds of colleges accept anyone with a high school degree and tuition money.

The following chart demonstrates that the race gap in average SAT scores has widened between whites and blacks since the school year of 1986-87.

http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=171

The failures of No Child Left Behind and Head Start provide additional evidence of the durability of the race gap in average intelligence, and consequently of its genetic origins.

Increased enrollment means nothing. What we should look at is degrees.

Loren Pechtel Approved Degrees only! Big white colleges are poorly equipped and not inclined to provide the education sought by or needed by minorities. You look at them, Loren. Your approval or disapproval will only be a personal or class bias anyway.

 

[Trodon]

The hiring decision is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, and who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company. Some bosses do not like blacks. Some bosses do not like homosexuals. Some bosses do not like Jews. Some bosses do not like Orientals. A boss who refuses to hire homosexuals, Jews, and/or Orientals will lose talented people to competitors. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

Please explain North Korea's failure on the global stage in economics and technology. That nation consists almost exclusively of "Orientals".

North Korea has the most evil government in existence. For several decades Japan has produced better cars and consumer electronics than the United States. South Korea, China, and Taiwan are catching up. The computer I am using was made in China. Orientals in the United States tend to perform better academically than whites. They tend to make more money. They tend to have lower crime rates.

 

[Trodon]

The hiring decision is personal. Bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with, and who will be liked by co-workers and customers of the company. Some bosses do not like blacks. Some bosses do not like homosexuals. Some bosses do not like Jews. Some bosses do not like Orientals. A boss who refuses to hire homosexuals, Jews, and/or Orientals will lose talented people to competitors. A boss who refuses to hire blacks is more likely to avoid performance and discipline problems.

And you know this how?

It is common knowledge, but I have talked to managers. I have seen what happens when blacks are hired because of affirmative action policies.

 

[bilby]

And you know this how?

It is common knowledge, but I have talked to managers. I have seen what happens when blacks are hired because of affirmative action policies.

"It is common knowledge" usually means "I believe this without foundation"

"I have talked to managers" apparently means "What little evidence I have is anecdotal, and therefore worthless"

and "I have seen what happens when blacks are hired because of affirmative action policies" means "I assume that my limited personal experience can be extrapolated to a general rule"

This answer of yours is almost a stereotype of woolly thinking bigoted nonsense.

If something is common knowledge, then there should be good evidence for it. Otherwise it is just a common bias.

Almost everyone has talked to managers (some of us have even been managers); So if many people don't reach your conclusion despite having done the same research, that strongly indicates that 'talking to managers' is a shithouse way to find out whether blacks are, as a group, less disciplined and/or hard-working than non-blacks.

I will see your vague anecdote, and raise you an "The hardest working employee I have ever had working directly for me was a Kenyan". Perhaps when you were talking to managers, you should have included me.

SO to get back to Athena's question: How do you know this?

We get that you believe it. But lots of people believe stuff that ain't so.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is common knowledge, but I have talked to managers. I have seen what happens when blacks are hired because of affirmative action policies.

"It is common knowledge" usually means "I believe this without foundation"

"I have talked to managers" apparently means "What little evidence I have is anecdotal, and therefore worthless"

and "I have seen what happens when blacks are hired because of affirmative action policies" means "I assume that my limited personal experience can be extrapolated to a general rule"

This answer of yours is almost a stereotype of woolly thinking bigoted nonsense.

If something is common knowledge, then there should be good evidence for it. Otherwise it is just a common bias.

Almost everyone has talked to managers (some of us have even been managers); So if many people don't reach your conclusion despite having done the same research, that strongly indicates that 'talking to managers' is a shithouse way to find out whether blacks are, as a group, less disciplined and/or hard-working than non-blacks.

I will see your vague anecdote, and raise you an "The hardest working employee I have ever had working directly for me was a Kenyan". Perhaps when you were talking to managers, you should have included me.

SO to get back to Athena's question: How do you know this?

We get that you believe it. But lots of people believe stuff that ain't so.

On the one hand, personal experiences agree with statistical facts about intelligence tests, educational attainment, and income. On the other hand, you have thousands of people shouting in your face that you are being stupid if you believe such a thing.

 

[bilby]

"It is common knowledge" usually means "I believe this without foundation"

"I have talked to managers" apparently means "What little evidence I have is anecdotal, and therefore worthless"

and "I have seen what happens when blacks are hired because of affirmative action policies" means "I assume that my limited personal experience can be extrapolated to a general rule"

This answer of yours is almost a stereotype of woolly thinking bigoted nonsense.

If something is common knowledge, then there should be good evidence for it. Otherwise it is just a common bias.

Almost everyone has talked to managers (some of us have even been managers); So if many people don't reach your conclusion despite having done the same research, that strongly indicates that 'talking to managers' is a shithouse way to find out whether blacks are, as a group, less disciplined and/or hard-working than non-blacks.

I will see your vague anecdote, and raise you an "The hardest working employee I have ever had working directly for me was a Kenyan". Perhaps when you were talking to managers, you should have included me.

SO to get back to Athena's question: How do you know this?

We get that you believe it. But lots of people believe stuff that ain't so.

On the one hand, personal experiences agree with statistical facts about intelligence tests, educational attainment, and income. On the other hand, you have thousands of people shouting in your face that you are being stupid if you believe such a thing.

Which rather suggests that they do not share your personal experiences. If your personal experiences are atypical, it would be unwise to rely upon them as evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is poor. Cherry-picked anecdotal evidence is even worse.

I have driven a car in six different countries*. In every case, they drive on the left hand side of the road. I also heard from a mate that when he was in Japan, he noticed that they drive on the left there. And another mate was in Jamaica, and he says the Jamaicans drive on the left.

If I conclude that driving on the left is the norm worldwide, and people from hundreds of other countries start telling me I am stupid, should I cling to my conclusion, based on my personal experience, and ignore those people?

The 'Statistical fact' is that the differences in IQ between races are so much smaller than the differences within races that they should be pretty much unnoticeable to casual observers in the workplace; The anecdotes don't support the statistics, and the statistics don't support the anecdotes - the stories told are only compatible with a massively larger effect than the statistics predict - which suggests that the stories told are biased.

It's almost as if some people hated blacks without good reason. Who would ever have thought it?




*England, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Increased enrollment means nothing. What we should look at is degrees.

Loren Pechtel Approved Degrees only! Big white colleges are poorly equipped and not inclined to provide the education sought by or needed by minorities. You look at them, Loren. Your approval or disapproval will only be a personal or class bias anyway.

And where's the appreciable value in simply attending college? Employers don't care about that, if anything it's a negative on a resume. Employers want to see the degree.