I read the book, on the strength of your interview with Murray. I agree with McWhorter's comments: Murray ends the exercise too early.
For starters, how much of the observed IQ gap within universities or professions is the result of affirmative action distorting admissions and hiring decisions, and how much is an efficient outcome? Murray reports a gap of 0.96 SD for accountants; is there a plausible affirmative action program that could explain that? As someone who often uses my IQ to compensate for other shortcomings (with varying success), it seems plausible that two groups could be equally good, on average, at some set of tasks, despite one group having a higher average IQ.
To the extent that there is official or implicit affirmative action, is it the gap itself, or the racial proportions, subject to equilibrating forces? The behavioral economics literature on the "law of small numbers" seems relevant.
I read the book, on the strength of your interview with Murray. I agree with McWhorter's comments: Murray ends the exercise too early.
For starters, how much of the observed IQ gap within universities or professions is the result of affirmative action distorting admissions and hiring decisions, and how much is an efficient outcome? Murray reports a gap of 0.96 SD for accountants; is there a plausible affirmative action program that could explain that? As someone who often uses my IQ to compensate for other shortcomings (with varying success), it seems plausible that two groups could be equally good, on average, at some set of tasks, despite one group having a higher average IQ.
To the extent that there is official or implicit affirmative action, is it the gap itself, or the racial proportions, subject to equilibrating forces? The behavioral economics literature on the "law of small numbers" seems relevant.