Steve Sailer is a name I hear now and again, every few weeks, but I know very little about the guy. Someone commented on this, which I wrote last night (about men wearing their shirts outside their trousers), to the effect that Sailer had something to say about this, about a week ago, that was relevant. I couldn’t find it, but I did find this 1995 piece about the nuances of why race relations in the US army are so much better than race relations in US colleges.
It’s no surprise to me that treating people in a totally meritocratic way, regardless of race, makes for better inter-ethnic relations, or that armies can’t allow inter-ethnic rivalries to build up in the ranks, so they don’t. So it was another less than completely obvious idea that I found striking in this piece, which is that the way for an unpopular racial or ethnic group to make an admired impact on the wider society is for it to concentrate and conquer niches rather than disperse and try to do well across the board. Sailer’s point is that academic racial preference policies undermine (to name but one of their many drawbacks) this benign process, by over-dispersing the group supposedly being helped. The US armed forces have been following the niche achievement model based on focussing totally on what each individual is best at contributing and letting the coloured faces concentrate or disperse at will, while the colleges of America, especially the elite colleges, have been applying the help-and-disperse model, with racially toxic results. The US army has enabled black men to impress white men – and black people to impress people generally – far more impressively than colleges have done. What’s more, this process has only become the more pronounced during the time since Sailer wrote his piece. (To drive home the point about what individuals can and can’t do, Sailer notes that although black Americans have excelled as Generals, they have as yet scarcely even flickered as Admirals.)
This fits my own experience, in non-military London. After my first few years as a Londoner I was seriously worried that I was turning into a racist. The last six black people I’d encountered were all blaring black music from their car stereos too loudly for my comfort, and I was starting to blame blackness, and to believe that there was a Black Musical Bad Manners gene. You don’t say things like this to strangers, but I was seriously starting to think it. (And I dare say that in a complicated genes-interacting-with-environment way this is actually true.)
Then I went to work, in a part-time and very menial capacity, in a totally meritocratic (and absolutely free of all racial quotas) financial services business, where clutches of black (and also black Muslim) guys were niche conquering, and doing fantastically impressively and well. The rule was simple. Are nine of the top dozen high-earning achievers nationwide in the business black guys with strange foreign names? So? What is your problem? You want white racial preferences do you? The rules are the rules! There is no problem! The rules are working and we are making money by the ton. Handshakes and rounds of applause all round. End of story.
I was graciously, and I do mean graciously, permitted to converse with a few of these mighty personages and all suggestion that such people were in any way genetically – or for that matter culturally – incapable of making anything impressive of themselves was expunged from my mind. And need I add that the manners of these impressive people (to someone of no likely importance or advantage to them – me) were impeccable? I felt immense relief. I didn’t want to become a racist, thank you very much. But I had become scared that the facts might oblige me to.
In other words, a potential white racist was cured not by the race I might have despised being helped (this would only have added resentment to my existing suspicions of inferiority), but by it finding a niche where (for reasons which I still don’t really understand) it had an advantage and where it was therefore concentrating, and was being allowed and encouraged to concentrate, and being handsomely and deservedly rewarded for what it was concentrating on.
(I have here dodged the whole argument about what exactly being “a racist” means. Here’s what I think about that. According to some definitions of racism, I still am a racist and this is a racist article, because it says that different groups are better at different
Brian, WRT your earlier post I think the most productive definition of racism is as a belief that people should be treated differently based solely on their race. Any other definition veers into the territory of the kinds of untestable assertions about thought processes and thought crimes that are used to bully people who refuse to toe the PC line. Most of the time it seems that “racist” really means nothing more than an attitude that the speaker doesn’t like.
Brian – I’m not sure whether Race “differences” can be attributed to too much with regard to success or failure in any field… independent will combined with the desire and drive to succeed at the task in hand will have much more of an effect on success.
What most people think of as “race traits” are actually cultural traits that are “learned”… the real physiological racial differences are much more subtle and practically un-noticeable (apart from colour and facial characteristics).
When you look at two families with very similar genetic makeup who have lived in the same street all their lives – and see how different the children grow up to be… you can see how much learned behaviour accounts towards our success or failure.
With such large differences in success apparent where there is little genetic difference… it is difficult to see where the larger “racial” genetic differences can be shown to cause any real help or hindrance… ( It would love to see someone try- that would be one heck of a non PC experiment 😉
The ability to train our physical and mental abilities to compete for whatever goal we desire soon overcomes any racial difference… and with the use of tools and language we can even overcome almost any physical hindrance. Racial traits are mostly made irrelevant by our individual determination.
When you find someone who is really successful in any given field – there is one thing that they all have in common… singlemindedness of purpose.
That race relations have been better in the U.S. Army than in U.S. society has long been true. But that’s somewhat artificial and superficial.
Behavior while in uniform, or on base, is enforced behavior. Blanco you would not indulge in racial must lest racist speech while on duty and you’d not likely endure Black Musical Bad Manners. But the Army is a socialist island in a sea of relative freedom and blanco you would likely have both on-duty and off-duty personas.
What you are addressing is not so much race relations as it is career opportunities.
Brian,
What an interesting post. I must agree with D Anghelone about races in the army. A while ago Darcus Howe was debating on the box with five or six British Army privates. He was endeavouring to spread the anti-racist gospel but the two black boys present just wouldn’t have it. “There’s only two kinds of soldiers,” one of them told him to general murmers of approval, “good soldiers and bad soldiers.”
Furthermore, I would venture to suggest that companies such as the one in the city for whom you worked function in a not dissimilar way to the Army – extreme authoritarianism aside. Success in the terms identified by the company is always to be respected within the company. In other words, group membership is the “live” factor in this and outweighs other differentials which might split or weaken the group to the detriment of all the members.
What this tells us about wider society is, unfortunately, very little. Loyalty to a diverse whole is next to impossible. Diversity is not strength. In-group/out-group factors still arise, of course, but follow the lines we all know so well. And that is where race differences come to bear.
Joe is wrong on this issue. The environmentalists are dead in the water. Race differences are real and makes themselves felt in countless subtle and not so subtle ways. This does not mean that anyone should be treated differently for their colour per se. But it does mean that egalitarianism is a lie that requires an authoritarian-left society to enforce it artificially.
By the way, Steve Sailor is a pretty good guy. Though a journalist he has a scientific approach. Somewhat controversially, however, he believes that miscegenation is the future of mankind. But then he is part-jewish himself and has a mixed marriage.
Guessed worker… please show me which racial behavioural traits are not environmentally produced or cannot be changed with the appropriate teaching.
I am really intrigued! 🙂
Brian – I meant to say at the end of my first comment…
By my reckoning -You are not a racist – you are a culturalist 🙂
Joe,
I will answer you question in a mo. First, I think its worthwhile pointing out that environmentalism is substantially founded on the work of Franz Boas, the German-jewish anthropologist (1858-1942) who came to America in 1888. In the late 19th century there was much argument to the effect that the races eminated from different origins and that there were superior and inferior races. Boas successfully battled these ideas – they are disproven by modern knowledge anyway. He also challenged the emerging science of IQ testing, which demonstrated wide variations in racial intelligence. At the end of his life he was labouring to dismantle the very notion of whiteness.
Subsequently, marxist and liberal academia relied for its egalitarian agenda on the Boas legacy. The issue of intelligence differentials remained, though, and had to be explained by left-leaning behavioural psychologists as environmentally caused rather than heritable. The avowed marxist Stephen Jay Gould was particularly active in this cause. Modern genetic science, especially in its earlier, “pre-genome” phase, was another politico-academic battleground. I am English and have often heard on radio Prof Steve Jones, the BBC’s tame genetecist, offering the anti-racist line wrapped up as science (you know the old sore about differentials being greater within races than between them). Jones is an active member of the Labour Party. But since the genome was cracked and all manner of interesting finds have begun to tumble out he has been a lot more reticent on air. The left is still fighting gamely. Recently a series was aired on the US public broadcasting network with the express objective of proving the non-existence of race, except as a social construct. It relied wholly on examination of mitochondrial DNA, however – the worthlessness of which for this purpose was not shared with the audience.
I hope this demonstrates the extreme politicisation of this great issue and also the antiquity, in scientific terms, of the environmentalism in which you apparently believe. It comes down to this: race exists and liberty reigns or it does not and egalitarianism shall be king. In any case the liberal academic establishment throughout the western world is trying to force the latter outcome, as you must know.
Now, how to answer your question? Well, I am tempted to point you to any of the specialist journals such as Heredity or even to Gene Expression (links from Samizdat) which has a wealth of interesting but not very environmental posts. Prof Stephen Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate, is a good starting point for liberals. Pinker is one at heart but in his head he is a race realist. But to answer your questio head-on, consider the well attested differences in testosterone between blacks and whites. Studies reported by Phillipe Rushton show a higher level in blacks between 3% and 20%, depending on age and population. I chose this because it’s hardly worth you disputing that testosterone has profound physical and behavioural influence. This has been found to include sexual maturation, earliness of sexual activity, level of activity and the correlated incidence of STD’s. A corresponding position obtains with regard to black and white females.
Will that do for now, Joe?
Sorry Guessedworker – the eminent studies you describe may provide some evidence behavioural traits caused by genetic differences; but none of the genetic behaviour differences described come close to those differences attainable through learned behaviour.
Understand that I am not denying there are different behaviours and abilities caused by genetic differences …. but when these differences are compared to the differences any two individuals can achieve through study and application of behavioural skills… the genetic side of the equation is extremely difficult to detect.
The trouble with any study is in differentiating learned behaviour from inbuilt behaviour as most children learn their behaviours from their parents and peers….(from their culture).
For example – take Testosterone levels: Do you know what happens to your testosterone levels if you up your excercise levels.. up your agressiveness and increase your sexual apetite…. strangely enough… you produce more Testosterone!!! Might that not be applicable to the culture of black youths who were in that experiment?
Consider genetics… what makes a populations gene’s change over time? Mightn’t it just have something to do with their changing desires, apetites and environment?
It’s back to the old chicken and egg thing: which came first the gene or the behaviour? The answer is both. Genes predispose behaviour but learned behaviour overwhelms and eventually changes genetic predispostion.
That is practically the basis of evolutionary theory.
The stuff on shirts and straight guys is in here:
http://www.isteve.com/Web%20Exclusives%20Archive-Jun2003.htm
Just press Ctrl+F and look for shirt.
Joe,
I am only too conscious that you are limiting this conversation to behaviour. It doesn’t bode well for my argument. Behaviour is a product both of personality – ie, that which is acquired – and of genetics. No one, race realist or not, would dispute the environmental role, even dominance in the former. But civilisation itself flows from the sum of a people’s broad noumenal characteristics and capacities. These are the primary determinants in, for example, the technology and complexity of a given civilisation. Thus we come to the heritability of intelligence, a largely genetic factor and, in the end, the one around which most academic and scientific blood has been spilt.
You appear to be thinking on a narrow scale at present, Joe. I urge you to broaden your vision and think in terms of populations, not individuals … of averages, not special or particular cases.
Brian began this thread with a linked article mentioning some black City whiz-kids he once met. Before that, though, he mentioned Steve Sailer. The latter wrote an article published in VDare on 3rd November 2002 titled Diversity Vs Freedom. He quoted Thomas Sowell saying “There is a fatal charm about the idea of judging each person as an individual … Most objections to sorting and labelling in general – and particularly to the sorting and labelling of people – are based on ignoring the costs of knowledge … Evem objection on purely moral grounds to discrimination against various groups often turn out to involve ignoring knowledge costs.”
Guessedworker… Nope – sorry – I’m thinking “pretty broad” &:)3<= ” urge you to broaden your vision and think in terms of populations, not individuals … of averages, not special or particular cases.”
Where do you imagine the averages come from?
It is the broad scope of humanity I am looking at – one eye on the genetic and behavioural minutiae of the individual and the other on the culture melee they create in group/society/race. That is pretty broad.
Yes -I’m talking behaviours because that is what Brian was taking his inferences from: Brian began talking about the Blacks and Muslims in the Finance business – and how he equated their success to a racial trait… which is quite probable: However what I was pointing out was that racial behavioural traits are much more a learned trait (cultural) than a genetic trait.
With regard to Steve Sailer/Thomas Sowell – I’m afraid Im not sure I fully understood what you mean… is there some other part of the big picture you specifically think I’m missing or ignoring?
I would disagree with the IMPORTANCE placed inheritability of intelligence… for a start you have to define intelligence… which is much more difficult than it first appears. From personal experience in my own work – I have practically never met a truly “stupid” person who wasn’t suffering from physical brain damage. All “normal” people are far more intelligent than most of them realise.
I have met many “idiots” who appear to be unable to learn simple work tasks yet can perform complex tasks – like driving cars and totting up betting calculations in their heads. Sadly on tracing people’s life history’s I have usually found that physically normal but “stupid” people have been taught their stupidity. That is not an occasional thing – that is my experience of the norm.
Most “unintelligent” people are held back by others or nothing more than their inability to either realise or admit that they have choice! Not by heredity.
Hi Joe,
It seems to me that your argument rests too heavily on people you have met. This bowdlerises the issue of race intelligence by referring to the paucity of real stupidity among these people. Race realists do not argue that black people are stupid. They argue that differences in intellegence and, yes, behaviour, exist and are heritable.
It occurred to me that you might be convinced by the famous Scarr-Weinberg tests. I hadn’t got the papers available so I Googled and found a good precis (albeit it in a strange place). Go to http://christianity.net/iqrace.htm
I’ll be interested to see what you make of it.
Guessedworker, I hope I got to the right study – the link didn’t work so I googled and came up with a link to http://christianparty.net/iqrace.htm
The study there concerns the IQ of adopted black, mulatto, and white children… and I’ve got to admit it comes up with some interesting results which I’ll look into further… but the nature of test undertaken fell into the trap of believing that just because the adoptive parents are above average intelligence that the adopted children will have experienced exactly the same environment as any of the same parents natural children would have. This isn’t the case… for a start the childrens environment is automatically changed by them being adoptees of a different colour- this means that they automatically get treated by the family and peers slightly differently- and possibly even totally differently… we cannot, without exploring their full life history understand or state as a certainty how different the environment the adoptees experienced would have been- to – for example the environment of any unadopted (natural) children within the new family.
I’m not worrying too much about my reliance on the experience I’ve had with people I’ve met: I find the greatest way to understand anything is never to assume any theory is the truth – but to take a theory and hold it up to reality – and see how well it fits. The reality of experience is a great teacher.
Any theory of genetic inheritence (or learned behaviour ) will continue to be greatly flawed until we discover much more about DNA encoding and what it is capable of and also until we know an awful lot more about neurology and how the full brain/nervous/cell/gene/chemical/molecular/electro-magnetic system encodes and processes thought. Unless we know much more about that our tests will continue to be hampered by necessary guesswork that fills in the holes.
So until then I go with my results of theory tested against experience 🙂
D Anghelone: you are mistaken, but it appears honestly so.
Yes, while in uniform, you are restricted from overt racism, as well as most forms of covert racism. Basically, if the military catches you, you are out.
But the problem is not a race one, but a culture one. It is hard to be racist when you serve with other soldiers and sailors, whether you are on duty or off. Because your very LIFE may depend on that guy, regardless of his skin tone.
Race is an artifical distinction, much less relevant that culture. The military installs a universal culture to all its recruits, explains to them the common mindset, goals and rules of military behavior. And part of that cultural conditioning is that race is unimportant in the field. What matters is whether the individual can do the job or not, will be there when you need them, will cover your back.
When your life is on the line, and you depend on another person, you soon realize what is important and what is irrelevant horse manure. And if your life depends on shoving out that stable, you shovel.
Which translate to off base activities as well as on base.
Joe,
You found the right study, of course. The telling factor in it is not, as you hold, that the environment might have been less than neutrally “white” for these children. No, it is that the environment, a highly favourable one academically and by normal black family standards, produced no positive benefit in measurable IQ. The children might as well have been brought up in any black family.
There are many peer-reviewed studies which incline to the same, race realist position. I am certainly unaware of there being one that demonstrates a basic or potential equity … not one. Even James Flynn’s theory of magic multipliers, which only held out a prospect of equity in intelligence some time in the distant future, is now being exposed to reality (see http://www.jbhe.com/latest/37_b&w_sat.html).
Franz Boas and his marxist/liberal successors are racists, not in the benign sense which I understand the term but in the perjorative sense in which the left itself uses it. They are consciously prostituting the coloured populations for the greater purpose of levelling the white race. That is what the creed – and it is only a creed – of environmentalism finally comes down to … not tolerance of difference but intolerance of the differences that underpin white civilisation.
Joe, what sets you apart from the marxist enemy of mankind is that you are, at least, keeping an open mind on the issue. I applaud you and wish you well in finding the evidence you need to come to your truth.
Ben:
But the problem is not a race one, but a culture one. It is hard to be racist when you serve with other soldiers and sailors, whether you are on duty or off. Because your very LIFE may depend on that guy, regardless of his skin tone.
Nice textbook logic but nonsense. It is patently obvious that people have no problem at all in maintaining bigoted attitudes in general and cooperatives attitudes in specific circumstance.
Sociology major, Ben? Ever been in uniform? A war zone? Observed the seemingly schizoid behavior of bigoted cops?
Ben again:
Race is an artifical distinction, much less relevant that culture. The military installs a universal culture to all its recruits, explains to them the common mindset, goals and rules of military behavior. And part of that cultural conditioning is that race is unimportant in the field. What matters is whether the individual can do the job or not, will be there when you need them, will cover your back.
This blather has become ubiquitous but nonetheless stunning in encounter. We are human beings, Ben. Race, for humans, is not constructed in lab or study. It exists in the eye of the beholder and it is human to behold.
Can that be conditioned out of humans? Think Yugoslavia.
Guessedworker,
I would agree with that the “creed of environmentalism” is often used in a completely racist purpose. Sadly I think a lot of that stems from a leftwing induced fear that any proof of genetic behaviour/intelligence traits will be used to disadvantage segments of society.
I’ve checked out the JBHE sat test site but from what I see the results are more likely to be environmental than racial… Its the dates that provide the evidence…when you take into account the politicised “progressive” educational policies and anti-educational peerpressure from late 1980’s and onwards. These two factors are massive contributors to the educational culture of both blacks and whites… but especially blacks.
I took another look at the Scarr-Weinberg test – but the lack of environmental information makes it far too open to “interpretation” and I can’t see how much meaningful data can be drawn from it.
The main trouble I find with genetic studies are that they trumpeted as being the be all and end all – if you have the gene you have the trait! Fair enough up to a point… but when it comes to a subject like intelligent behaviour… this is not the case. Genes are only one part of the hardware… but the behaviour is constantly rewired by thought processes and sensory data which are both the software and also part hardware… then to make matters even more complicated the hardware itself gets rewired and manipulated by our diet and the natural process of cell generation and regeneration…which is itself manipulated by our thought process and gene structure.
My own studies combined with my experience have led me to my current conclusion that regardless of any genetic traits that we have affecting our behaviour – these can very easily be overcome by simply learning new behaviours. The question of whether our genetic code puts a ceiling on our intelligence… is a difficult one because it would seem obvious that it must… but … because I have seen how people get “taught” to be stupid – and I know how to counteract that – I am not sure where the ceiling limit can now be applied. To test the ceiling limit for intelligence you have to first replace the “stupid teaching” that they have instilled into them with new “apetite for intelligence teaching” and see where that takes the individual. That is a long term process. It would make for an interesting study though 🙂
D Angelhone,
Well said. How anyone, ANYONE can think that race is an artificial distinction (“social contruct” is the usual, poisonous phrase) is simply beyond me. It bespeaks an extremely confused mind … or one that is knowingly setting out to screw whiteness and all its works.
Victim of marxist propaganda or self-hating marxist liar, Ben, take your pick.
Joe,
Sandra Scarr was very much an environmentalist. She hoped and expected the S-W study to confirm her prevailing intellectual and professional conclusions but, of course, it did the reverse. All the studies do the reverse! The left has been trying to prove its own case for decades and it can’t. The best it has been able to do is to smear, fire and prosecute its opponents … and press on regardless with the cultural attack. This is a dirty war, Joe.
I like the anti-education peer pressure point you make. But it still amounts to trying to find a reason for something that already has one. Let me throw you a twist. The well-accepted, non-controversial average quotient gap between West Africans (70)|and Europeans (100) is neatly bissected by African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans at 85. Race realists explain this by the European genetic loading the latter two populations carry. OK, you will say that the superior environmental-educational factors they enjoy are at least as influential as (white) genes. BUT … studies of modern mixed race in America and Europe not involving one sub-Saharan African parent have demonstrated that the average IQ is raised to the median point again (low 90’s).
To cleave to learned behaviours as the raiser of average IQ here you must ignore the step change that occurs. That posits all kinds of difficulties for you which I am sure a moment or two’s reflection will reveal.
The alternative won’t bite you, Joe. Remember, we are not talking about individuals here. You do not have to have the gene to have the trait. But populations do. That’s all it’s about, really.
Guessedworker,
Nice try – but you do realise that you are trying to get me to accept statistical “guesswork” as a truism, and to ignore the evidence of my own experience. Now wouldn’t I be the right fool to go along with that 😉
The reason I cannot accept your argument is that all of the IQ studies are much too open to interpretation. Which is exactly what allows the left to insert political propaganda in place of reasoned scientific argument. Its not that genetics don’t play a factor – but that to argue that genetics is the main factor when change in behavioural factors are easily demonstrated to supercede any genetic predisposition makes the genetic argument very weak – regardless of statistical analysis.
When you talk about “Race Realists” explaining IQ differences by European genetic loading – you must also factor in any European cultural loading that goes right along with this! (and thats only for starters)
Our scientific knowledge is not yet at the stage where we can give definitive answers on this.
But there is one very good reason for me sticking to my argument….
Consider this:-
Where nature is concerned – you get roughly the genes you need… most people until relatively recently in human history had to solve roughly the same type of problems no matter where they were in the world… so nature gave every human mostly the same IQ. It is only really since the incorporation of society wide schooling systems, teaching abstract ideas, that there has been a change in the necessary brainwork needed to get by in our different corners of the world. That is really only 150 years or so for most of the Europeanised world and 50-70 years for the rest of the world. So it is to be expected that there are racial differences in IQ levels. Prior to this the main differences found in peoples IQ’s would have been drawn along urban/rural lines. (Another European trait that helped boost IQ was massive increase in food production – food for everyone- so you get a well fed brain to help with your education.)
Now with learning – the more you train your brain – the better your IQ and vice versa – stop using it and you lose it. Its just like building muscles. Use it stay fit – lose it- become a lardblob!
With that fact in mind we need to find out – how long before these actions show up as an hereditary trait? Are children of better educated well fed people more likely to have higher IQ’s …yes to a small extent – but the behavioural system is more important -because of those laws of nature:
(and this is largely why I think we need to concentrate on the behaviour and environment and not on the genetics)
STEP 1
-you get from your parents genes what you need
STEP 2
– you get to use it or lose it through behaviour
STEP 3
– you pass on to your kids what they need
If those children of well fed, well educated parents dont use their brains then they lose it – and this will be passed on to their children both genetically and culturally.
Now one part of current leftist dogma is the need to make people feel as though they are better than they actually are in reality. Building “self esteem” + Rewarding them more for doing less and less… This produces the worse possible effect by making them use less and less of the natural gifts that they have been given – and that; both genetically and culturally, is a disaster waiting to happen… because nature will just take those gifts away.
So do you see the point of my pushing the environmental and behavioural effects…. if you concentrate on the behaviour and the environment – the genetics will take care of itself.
Of course you can play around in the lab with gene’s and see what you can come up with…
“Egor- today you and I are going to build ourselves a Freak!! Bwahahahaha!!!”
but concentrating on the genetic side doesn’t tackle the problem of people being taught to be stupid.
My take on the whole thing is- why not do it the simple way and teach people to help themselves?
So I will keep pushing enviromental and behavioural issues 🙂
Well said. How anyone, ANYONE can think that race is an artificial distinction (“social contruct” is the usual, poisonous phrase) is simply beyond me. It bespeaks an extremely confused mind … or one that is knowingly setting out to screw whiteness and all its works.
Screw whiteness? I had had her and she was pretty good. Not much of a worker.
“Social construct” is a perfect all-purpose phrase meaning everything and nothing. And that’s perfect for an age when everthing is said in essays of nothingness.
I don’t know why they do it up north, but down here in Texas we leave our shirts untucked to hide our guns, as the law requires that we do (conceal the guns, I mean).
Claiming Texas already, eh? Let’s hear your drawl.
Joe,
Two last thoughts.
Number 1 “we get the genes we need”: this is a environmentalism on a Darwinian scale and is totally distinct from the sort of short-term, almost immediate re-wiring which you postulate.
The much maligned Phillipe Rushton proposed (you might say speculated) that ancient Rift Valley societies did not place a powerful emphasis on child care because the threats to life (deseases, draught) were impossible to overcome. These peoples tackled the problem by high levels of reproduction and developed the appropriate genetic and behavioural predispositions along the way.
However, those who migrated in the great waves northward experienced profoundly different environments with new threats to overcome. The greatest was food shortage for much of the year. Deseases and draught were lower-order threats. The strategy for survival changed accordingly, to one of lower reproduction with greater investment in child care. The result, across a suitably vast time period, was a genetic development towards encephalisation and away from sexualisation. This, Rushton says, is the foundation of race differences in IQ, sexual precocity and activity, male-female loyalty and that investment in child care, with a (somewhat oversimplified model) of east Asians at one of the spectrum, Europeans in the middle and sub-Saharan Africans at the other end.
Regarding your idea that “you lose it or lose it” I strongly suspect that the evidence tends not to support this. Yes, the brain is a muscle that benefits from use. But this is not the same thing as influencing native intelligence. Intelligence is, most probably, a product of the grey (not white) cells. It is to the brain what torque is to a diesil engine. One can familiarise oneself to a greater or lesser extent with pushing on the throttle, which is what you are talking about. But, to paraphrase your language, “what you have you hold” – you pass on your DNA.
The issue of being taught to be stupid is a very hot, left-wing potato. Generally, it is held to signify institutional racism and brings us back towards Brian’s original post. The current cure (EiC, the forthcoming access regulator and all) may – by “over dispersal” among other things – perversely succeed only in underpinning that which it seeks to change. I don’t foresee any political party having the courage to change prevailing educational orthodoxy, though.
Guessedworker,
Two last thoughts.
Number 1 “we get the genes we need”: this is a environmentalism on a Darwinian scale and is totally distinct from the sort of short-term, almost immediate re-wiring which you postulate.
Long term is always composed of the short term… the time scale for rewiring has to be based in the short term – it could not otherwise exist. The basis for genetic change must therefore be contained within a cellular lifespan. How much change is possible or wise per cell are some of the intriguing questions this raises.
The much maligned Phillipe Rushton proposed (you might say speculated) that ancient Rift Valley societies did not place a powerful emphasis on child care because the threats to life (deseases, draught) were impossible to overcome. These peoples tackled the problem by high levels of reproduction and developed the appropriate genetic and behavioural predispositions along the way.
As you say- it is just a speculation- and it would take too long for me to fully cover my ideas on that here. Lets just say I think what matters is how we think – Once we can compose timeline stories from our imagination and communicate them to others I think that behaviour becomes hugely important, because storytelling can override base behaviour because it sets up new behavioural strategies. No one knows for sure at what point in human history that developed.
Regarding your idea that “you lose it or lose it” I strongly suspect that the evidence tends not to support this. Yes, the brain is a muscle that benefits from use. But this is not the same thing as influencing native intelligence.Intelligence is, most probably, a product of the grey (not white) cells. It is to the brain what torque is to a diesil engine. One can familiarise oneself to a greater or lesser extent with pushing on the throttle, which is what you are talking about. But, to paraphrase your language, “what you have you hold” – you pass on your DNA.
As I said above – changes to DNA occur over the lifespan of a single cell… Also behaviour change causes cell change… and thought accelerates behaviour change. So once any being has reached the level of being able to manipulate their thoughts at will then they have the attained the ability to accelerate cellular change. Thats why increased thinking causes more thinking ability and lack of use causes loss. How much of the behaviour change gets encoded in DNA is not known – but some of it must otherwise all changes would be random events, which they obviously aren’t.
The issue of being taught to be stupid is a very hot, left-wing potato. Generally, it is held to signify institutional racism and brings us back towards Brian’s original post. The current cure (EiC, the forthcoming access regulator and all) may – by “over dispersal” among other things – perversely succeed only in underpinning that which it seeks to change. I don’t foresee any political party having the courage to change prevailing educational orthodoxy, though.
It is well recognised that everyones IQ can be increased through learning – and also that IQ becomes reduced by lack of use.Therefore Less thinking = lower IQ.
Current progressive teaching promotes “feel-good” ideology over the learning of specific knowledge…. It also promotes the use of artificially stored data over the ability to commit data to memory… etc etc….Thus reducing the requirement for and use of the various types of thinking abilty. Using less of your brains abilities= Lowering the IQ… Teaching people to use less of their brains abilities = Teaching people to be stupid.
This is then made worse by the promotion of the political concept that everything will be provided for our needs… so even less thinking ability is required. There are other methods that help teach people to be stupid – but I’ve said enough.
When you combine this with the knowledge that some small DNA changes occur over the lifespan of a single cell and that individual behaviour causes cell change then there is no leap of faith required to reach the conclusion that IQ loss in parents will statistically produce children with lower IQ’s.
I’m just going by the basic facts provided by science … when you look at the facts it requires no further inventive theories to reach the conclusion that “stupidity” is being taught.
The progressive stuff has a greater hold in black schools – if they get rid of that and get rid of the anti-intelligent macho thing… there will be a big change in average IQ. But statistics take time.
Education will change by necessity… the less intelligent people are the more obvious it will become when they try to get work. People will not put up with that forever. Lets hope its sooner rather than later.
My own studies combined with my experience have led me to my current conclusion that regardless of any genetic traits that we have affecting our behaviour
I’m going have to call Joe on this. His Lamarkian ideas would not be tolerated any reputable academic institution. As I said above – changes to DNA occur over the lifespan of a single cell… How much of the behaviour change gets encoded in DNA is not known. The first statement is false (despite many attempts to demonstrate the effect) and the answer to the (second) question is ‘None!’
No-one credible seriously disputes that a group of behavioural traits generally categorized as intelligence varies in different populations, including those populations we generally characterize as races.
The Left has always hated this idea, and gone to great lengths to demonize anyone who presents evidence of this. I know because I studied this stuff over 30 years ago, and gave it up (in part) because to do research in this area was career suicide.
The Left’s problem is that Marxist theory says that social class (i.e. the environment) is the primary determinant of behaviour. Evidence to the contrary undermines what little intellectual credence Marxism has, and therefore must be discredited by any available means.
One other thing – Once we can compose timeline stories from our imagination and communicate them to others I think that behaviour becomes hugely important.. No one knows for sure at what point in human history that developed.
We can date it with considerable accuracy by dating the appearance of written language. In evolutionary terms it is *very very* recent. Hence large variability in behavioural skills related to language and other related skills e.g. mathematics is to be expected in both individuals and populations. The idea we get the genes we need is complete nonsense.
Phil, you are so very sure?
“I’m going have to call Joe on this. His Lamarkian ideas would not be tolerated any reputable academic institution. As I said above – changes to DNA occur over the lifespan of a single cell… How much of the behaviour change gets encoded in DNA is not known. The first statement is false (despite many attempts to demonstrate the effect) and the answer to the (second) question is ‘None!'”
“None” is fine if all mutation is accidental and random…but there is just one problem – it provably isnt. Of course behaviour doesn’t produce immediate DNA change… if it did multicellular bodies would be a disasterous mess. Stopping mutation is more important for the cell than the ability to mutate. If it can stop it – it can control it… which it does- thereby removing the random factor. Normal bodily behaviour causes internal cellular change…which is how our bodies move,eat, breath etc… What factors are derived from this that directly or indirectly affect encoding change is what is not yet understood.
As for the written language ideas…. I was talking about human ancestry that is pre homo sapiens sapiens- though obviously social, highly developed and which predates known writing by at least a million years.
As for the idea that “we get the genes we need” being complete nonsense … of course you are correct- which is why human women give birth to so many methane breathing sodium based alien offspring 😉
Hi Joe,
Where do those two holy words, natural selection, fit into your theory? Are they not the true engine of genetic mutation, always favouring the most environmentally adapted individuals?
Thus, if one takes Rushton’s admittedly basic model and examines how it applies to homo sapiens in cold, challenging Europe (or east Asia), one can surmise that the children who were best cared for were those who survived to pass on their genes. The children who were cared for sub-Saharan style were less likely to survive to do so.
This process is neither accidental nor random. It is Darwinian and it has made us what we are today, individually and collectively. The collective very much includes race.
That you find in your working life some redeeming evidence for black intellect is fine, though I think that Thomas Sowell’s council is worthy of note. No one, however, would deny you your findings or demean their value. That said, the factual evidence that I have quoted in this thread and Phil B’s clear and, I think, well-founded comment should tell you something.
Guessedworker,
I am in no disagreement with natural selection…
Natural selection accounts for a lot of what we see happening above gene level. What I am talking about occurs on the molecular and smaller scale to cause mutation in genes. Phils argument requires that mutation occurs by accident… but cells have inbuilt mechanisms to prevent mutative accident… This control therefore gives the cell some ability to interfere with randomness. The greatest force active in cell control is the electro-biochemical (thought) info it receives from the larger body of which it is a part. If you think I am a fool for believing that (thought/behaviour) which controls all aspects of a cell’s environment and internal workings therefore also affects its DNA encoding – well – It is seems pretty logical to me – so I am content to be that sort of foolish believer 🙂
As for me “finding some redeeming aspect for black intellect” – what on earth does that mean?
I have no need to find redeeming aspects for anyone or anythings intellect – Intellect is a tool which can be either a redeeming feature or a damning feature… depending on the user.
I stick by what I said because it contains the best logical proof that I am aware of…. and yes- thus I’m damned by my own intellect 😉
Tangent, I guess. I’m not joining in the argument, it’s too sensitive for me. Take that as you will, and excuse any bitterness that creeps through, please. I want to introduce something else.
Aside from leftist versus rightist versus marxist versus whoever, a major flaw in any studies of this kind (and an even worse flaw in non-scientists who try to interpret them) is that there is always a definite personal interest. For whites, this kind of study is seen as an attack on their societal position — which is understandable as it’s become the vogue to blame those of European descent for everything from genocide to the common cold. (I’m wearing myself ragged trying to defend American whites from those European whites I come in contact with who feel themselves morally superior and try to use me — I’m black — as a rallying point, which I resent.)
For blacks it becomes a question of “oh great, MORE people who are [allegedly] better than us” and a horrible suspicion that maybe they deserve the crappy position they’ve been stuck in throughout most of modern times because they are genetically incapable of doing any better. (I don’t believe people really grasp what a huge societal low-self-esteem problem there is in the black community–I speak for America but I’ve also seen signs of it in people of other regions — the white-guilt, of which resentment is the flip side, is new in comparison. For the record, I think both are hugely damaging to all of us.) We’ve been taught to dislike ourselves, down to physical characteristics, at a subconscious level. (No time or space to elaborate on that, it would take a book).
There’s always a personal stake in this IQ argument, and so I doubt very seriously it will ever be resolved, and frankly attempts such as this just depress the hell out of me, because I see a lot of people arguing with great heat and passion over abstracts with little regard to the ramifications of what they’re saying (no reflection on the majority of statements here, which in comparison to some I’ve seen are actually very well-put and frankly, polite).
(I’d love to hear some Asian commentary on this, it often gets overlooked. It would also be interesting to hear from the folk who don’t try to oversimplify by dividing 6 billion people into three discrete categories. I take issue with those who’d attempt to dump Polynesians, Australian Aborigines, Papua New Guineans, Native Americans, and half of India in with “Mongoloid” wholesale. Bad science.)
What’s important to me is how this affects the individual. My IQ has been tested and scored rather high. Does that mean I’m not really black? Or if I am, then I’m “a credit to my race?” Hardly a scientific tack, but quite honestly that’s what it all winds up boiling down to. (That and the pat-on-the-head smile/gasp of surprise from lookers-on when something intelligent comes out of my mouth.) The thought of that becoming the norm makes me ill. Because that’s what it will be — the assumption of racial inferiority will lead to even those “exceptions” and “deviants” who “measure up” being discounted and ignored. It will NOT be a situation of: “Okay, the odds are this individual is a stupid person, but let’s check and make sure in every single case.” And that will be okay. (And jeeze, THEN what will be retrospectively justified??) And being me, and being that I and my future children will/would be directly affected by this, scientific dispassion is not an option.
If it ever is proven conclusively that one race is intellectually inferior to the other (let’s not pretty it up with jargon), what will your own personal reactions and subsequent behavior be, and will that be acceptable to you? As I said, a tangent, but a valid one, I think.
For the record, If I weren’t doing the tangent thing, I’d be taking the let’s-look-at-the-relative-cultural-applicability-of-the-test-itself tack. Also for the record, I’m Caribbean — insofar as anyone will let me claim that, since I was born in the US — and was raised in a family and community of Anglophiles (and an extremely education-oriented religious subcommunity).
CRL, regarding your question…
“If it ever is proven conclusively that one race is intellectually inferior to the other (let’s not pretty it up with jargon), what will your own personal reactions and subsequent behavior be, and will that be acceptable to you? As I said, a tangent, but a valid one, I think.”
If you accept the average IQ marks per country as a definitive value of racial intellectual level then the conclusive proof is already here.
Grasping what it means is an altogether more slippery fish. For a start IQ tests only test a small range of specific intellectual abilities. Then you have to take into account that these are only average marks… which means that half of the country/race has a greater IQ than the mark given and will therefore possibly have an IQ comparable or greater than many people in those countries rated with a higher average IQ.
To me IQ is only a benchmark of a moment in an individual history. That IQ’s can be raised through study or lowered through lack of use has been proved many times over and is visibly observable in any child who misses schooling. On a personal level once you are aware of your IQ in a free country you then have the option to increase it through study… benefiting hopefully yourself and your family.
The Use of a racial average IQ level is as a marker of possible problems or advantages in some aspect of that society. It benefits us all to look at what is causing it.
What is acceptable to me is its use as a benchmark for understanding ourselves and our societies and also its use as a tool for improvement.
Though with self improvement being such a fashion item – It wont surprise me if in the next 10 years someone starts selling artificial cybernetic intelligence enhancement – to save the bother of all this studying 😉
CRL: You raise a number of questions, so forgive me if I only try and answer a couple.
The problem that concerns me, is that people attack the science (and the scientists) because they do not like the political implications of the science. This is particularly a problem for (and from) Marxists who claim that Marx’s theories are ‘scientific’. Although science is a problem for all ideologies. In summary, science produces better outcomes than ideology and that is why I support the science over ideology.
As I said, considerable variation between individuals is to be expected. Which means plenty of smart black people and dumb white people.
You will find that most people here are against dealing with any group on a collective basis. People are individuals and should be dealt with as such, which was Brian’s original point. I see no small irony in those who attack the science, because they want to treat people as statistical abstractions, and the science doesn’t support the statistical abstraction they want to believe in.
If it ever is proven conclusively that one race is intellectually inferior to the other (let’s not pretty it up with jargon), what will your own personal reactions and subsequent behavior be, and will that be acceptable to you?
As far as I am concerned the case was proven a long time ago, that some groups, including groups generally categorized as ‘races’, differ significantly (in a statistical sense) in their intellectual capabilities. I think I can honestly say it has no effect on how I deal with people, nor do I think it is relevant to framing public policy.
I probably need to knock the IQ thing on the head.
IQ is not an objective measure of anything interesting. However, when we try and measure capabilities most people would call intellectual, we find IQ correlates well and consistently, so we know IQ is a good relative measure in a statistical sense.
And there’s the rub! Cutting through all the statistical mumbo-jumbo, IQ says scientifically interesting things about groups of people (populations), but says far less of interest about individuals.
So, if you view yourself as a member of group, I can see why IQ would be of more interest to you, than it would be to me, as I think of myself as an individual.
Joe said: If you accept the average IQ marks per country as a definitive value of racial intellectual level then the conclusive proof is already here. Grasping what it means is an altogether more slippery fish. To me IQ is only a benchmark of a moment in an individual history.
I say — okay, this I can accept wholeheartedly.
Joe said: That IQ’s can be raised through study or lowered through lack of use has been proved many times over and is visibly observable in any child who misses schooling. On a personal level once you are aware of your IQ in a free country you then have the option to increase it through study… benefiting hopefully yourself and your family.
I say — okay, now that would change things! If we’re looking at IQ as a fluid measure, rather than a cage or a structural defect, then I have no problem. I’m not certain most people are aware of IQ as being something that can fluctuate, however — or at least not by more than a few points. It usually gets presented as a test “They” (capital T) give you at some point early on in your life that determines what you’ll do and where you’ll go for the rest of it.
Now I’m finding myself beginning to wonder, however, what’s the point of an IQ test then — how is it different; what is it telling us that the Iowas or the standardized Achievement Tests are not? (It seems that what’s being suggested is, the IQ test measures the limits of potential while the AT’s measure material learned and retained.)
And I’ve read differing accounts of what material is actually covered within these tests — apocrypha about British children, for example, getting a poorer mark on such a test because they’ve identified a picture of a “store” as beginning with the sound “sh” instead of “st” — not taking into account that the British child would consider the picture a “shop.” (These are usually cited to point out why the tests are unfair.)
Other tests I’ve actually seen myself — ones that seem more objective to me — are the those that list a series of dots or figures or squiggles or whatever and then ask the test-taker to identify what will be the next mark in the series.
This also introduces the question of what any particular IQ test is measuring — aka the ability to function under a given set of circumstances (culture, society, educational system, what have you). Would a superior ability to function under a different set of circumstances be accorded an equal amount of respect? It’s similar to the male/female argument: I don’t believe men and women are the same, mentally and of course not physically. The problems arise when the areas in which women excel are not treated with the same regard as those areas in which men excel, even though both sides are necessary and beneficial to the species.
My point is, I suppose — are we all working with the same set of defined terms??
Phil said — I think I can honestly say it has no effect on how I deal with people, nor do I think it is relevant to framing public policy.
I say — I sincerely wish I could trust most people to behave as you would.
And I sincerely hope that it’s understood that I and people like me are not asking these questions to “undercut the underpinnings of white civilization” or what have you. I live in quote-unquote “white civilization.” I like it here. Anyone who tries to send me elsewhere will have a fight on their hands. That’s not relevant to what I’m trying to get at. It has a lot more to do with (pardon the oncoming drama) fear of our own extinction.
Phil said — So, if you view yourself as a member of group, I can see why IQ would be of more interest to you, than it would be to me, as I think of myself as an individual.
I say — I like the way you think! It’s healthy. I try to think in terms of individuals most of the time as well — however, every so often (more often than not) something crops up to remind me that a great many people don’t think of ME that way. No way am I comparing today to, say, fifty years ago, but it’s still true that racial minorities are still, to an extent, regarded as a deviation from the “norm” in a given society, and are judged in relation to that norm. (If you think I’m joking, go visit Japan. Or read a random Western book in which people are described according to the shape of their cheekbones, the color of their hair, or how often they laugh, and the black character is described as “the black character.” The best example I can come up with right now is “Lucky You” by Carl Hiassen because I’m tired.) It’s a human tendency to think in collective terms, and at one point in our evolution it kept us alive what with competing for food and that sort of thing, and it still has its place, but now it primarily serves to irritate me. Even when I’m doing it myself.
Phil also said — You will find that most people here are against dealing with any group on a collective basis.
I say — I know, that’s why I keep coming back! 🙂
I’m going to stop calling myself CRL and start going by “Tangent Girl.”
CRL,
A couple of quick comments. First, the cultural applicability of the IQ tests was tackled by Arthur Jensen. He employed non-culture-specific tests using, for example, geometric shapes. The gap was not narrowed.
Second, you say we hicks argue with heat and passion – and that’s true enough – but without regard to the ramifications. I’m sure that you understand that this debate is not a scientific one or a racial one. It is really a political one and the ramifications, for us, are political. It is boringly obvious but, apparently, it needs to be said that this debate is in itself resistance to a longstanding, intellectually cohesive campaign by the radical left. This campaign has exploited minorities – not just racial ones, of course – in its effort to weaken and perhaps even destroy western civilisation and the fair-skinned peoples that gave rise to it. It happens that science has some things to say about race differences (not merely average IQ) that are helpful to this resistance. The intent of the resisters, therefore, is not to use this science to downgrade any peoples who are non-white or damage anyone’s self-esteem, any more than it is to build up the east Asians who, on average, comfortably surpass whites on the measures in question. No one here is a yellow racist nor, in any perjorative sense of the term, a white racist either. I imagine everybody would willingly subscribe to being an anti-marxist, though.
Phil, when you say … ” it has no effect on how I deal with people, nor do I think it is relevant to framing public policy.”
… surely you don’t mean you would gather all that lovely “scientific” data and then not have any fun with it!!! 😉
But seriously- I do think once that type of socio-political information is out there – someone is going to make use of it- so its best to make sure that its put to good use.
CRL,
Too often scientific data and theory are presented to us as TRUTHS… which is a problem politically because ideologies get built on these “truths”. And in the end theories and data all contain errors that show up in the long term. Its much better if we look at Scientific theory and data only as tools
which we can use to help us understand the world around us a little better… and work from there.
Its a matter of getting everyone to realise that something like IQ can be a tool they can make personal use of… bring the theory down to the level of the individual and make dry scientific stuff useful.
When you ask ” — are we all working with the same set of defined terms??” … you have got to be joking…
… sure that would take half the fun away 😉
Phil,
You say that “the science” is not relevant to framing public policy. But at present that policy is framed on “blank-sheet” Boasian principles. It is a nonsense to continue with that falsehood for a moment longer than we have to. The first challenge is to expose the left, the second to expunge its egalitarianism from public policy, the third to develop policy that allows dignity but also liberty for all. I am sure you, like me, would want that policy to be grounded in science rather than yet more political prejudice, be it of the left or right.
Gworker said — Second, you say we hicks argue with heat and passion..
I say — Stop projecting your mental processes on me. I said everyone affected by the topic argues with heat and passion — black and white. YOU said “hicks.” Unless you take issue with the fact that I said white? Does white=hick in your mind? It doesn’t, in mine. (Do you take for granted that I am NOT a hick?)
I’m not discounting the research — I haven’t been alive long enough to read it all yet. I’m simply trying to bring up the human side of it — you see the debate as an attempt to eradicate or undermine your culture/race etc — and I (at times, and a lot of people like me) see it as an attempt to eradicate/undermine mine.
What I should have said was:
‘I do not think IQ scores are relevant to framing public policy that deals with people based on their race.’
To give an example, height correlates at least as well as ‘race’ with IQ, but I have never heard of anyone suggest we frame public policy based on a person’s height. The suggestion that the scientific data would result in such policy based on race is a straw-bogeyman put up by the Left to scare people.
For the record, I am a strong advocate of social cohesiveness and inclusion. I think that exclusion of any group, or the perception by any group of being excluded, is socially dangerous, and I include in this definition, groups that try to define themselves as different.
This is not to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to be as different from the norm as they choose to be. I think individual diversity is healthy. Where individual diversity ends and group diversity begins is an interesting topic, but this is close to being a dead thread.
Thanks everyone!
Can I make one last comment? Then I’ll let it go, I swear. 🙂
—- “The suggestion that the scientific data would result in such policy based on race is a straw-bogeyman put up by the Left to scare people.”
You have no idea how much I want to believe that, and I *very much* appreciate that you do. But I can’t afford to. It has been done. All through the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, tables of scientific data were put together for the express purpose of proving that blacks were animalistic subhumans and needed to be controlled, or enslaved, or kept separated — blacks had smaller heads, or less body hair, or would sweat more, or had more ropy muscles, or what have you, so they were overpassionate, oversexed, devoid of self-control, less sentient, less human.
The fact that I am doing pretty freaking nicely in my modern western society does not make me feel safe in the least. In the US in the late 19th century, just after the abolition of slavery, there were blacks in high political offices — judges, mayors, state positions. This all came crashing down with the formation of the Ku Klux Klan and the introduction of Jim Crow segregation (the time periods coincide, I’m not saying which directly caused the other, not enough space to trace it here.) If you’re 33 or over, then the last govermant-sanctioned (meaning there were no steps taken by any political authority, local or otherwise, to investigate the crime) race-related lynching in the US took place in your own lifetime. Before Hitler, there were Jews in Germany who were successful militarymen, politicians, and businesspersons — then the scientists came out with their textbooks for children listing how the Jew’s eyes were “too” close together and his ribcage was “too” narrow, which of course him shifty, perfidious and a menace to a genetically pure society. These were normal people living normal lives, when suddenly they weren’t anymore, because some policy had been framed based on false conclusions drawn from ostensibly objective data.
The fear that I have didn’t come from any campaign by the Left, nor is it a new fear — it’s something that’s been around since way before Kennedy (a time when the majority of black Americans were voting Republican). There are plenty of historical facts — we never needed any remote Leftist establishment to tell us that.
“Modern” people are not superior to our forefathers just because we think we are, or because we’ve seen the result of their actions. Some of the prejudices I listed above, among others, are still around, although hopefully in diluted form. We have to prove that we’ve learned from those mistaken actions, over and over again, and because of this I must continue to be nervous. History repeats itself, and it’s our responsibility to never assume that we cannot fall into the same traps. We can’t be complacent.
Science is neutral, science is objective, but people are not. And those of us who share beliefs in individuality, in forums like this one, must absolutely never forget that — don’t assume it will never come up, or that it’s just a leftist “straw man.” Don’t get comfortable!
So if you believe this: ‘I do not think IQ scores are relevant to framing public policy that deals with people based on their race.’ — all I’m saying is please do all in your power to make bloody sure that it doesn’t happen (and please don’t dismiss my fear). That’s not directed specifically at Phil or anyone else, it’s a general thought.