Respect both these men greatly. Sam especially because he dared to interview Charles Murray. I’ve listened to Glenn a lot more, and especially enjoyed his talks with John McWhorter. I have to say, while Sam’s argument about race should be regarded like hair color would be neat, it isn’t and part of why it isn’t is that there are all kinds of movements and agendas going on to bring about “equity” for non-whites, so we cannot just not pay attention. We need to figure out how to bring about the non-interest Sam wishes for. I can’t say I know a lot about why or how IQ develops as it does, but I have to think that Asians studying 365 days a year bodes well for them, while whites studying only 2/3rd of that time may not end up as intelligent, and that is only ONE factor out of many many factors. How much do whites dumb themselves down with drugs or alcohol for example? How would an IQ test done on men using only feminine questions turn out? Ditto, women tested on predominantly male subjects? True, it is not how we use IQ testing, but I think I’m making a useful point here. I don’t think we are all truly blank slates to start with and how we live has impact on our ultimate intelligence.
I had a similar reaction to Sam's hair color analogy. It's not really "we" as a society who make that call. It's the blondes. And I suspect if blondes voted 95 percent for one political party, there'd be 500 political action committees with the word "blonde" in them.
P.S. To bring about the non-interest that Sam wishes for, we ought to stop using quotas in employment and university applications and make these things merit-based. If I’m a business, I want the most qualified person doing the work I need someone to do and I don’t care about anything else and I set the standard for those qualifications. If I’m a dean at a university I want the smartest and brightest in my school. Those who don’t make the grade should go to lesser schools until they can meet the grade. I am sure this sounds just horrible, but please know I am very empathetic and want all people to succeed, so please read on. It comes down to economics, always! A difficulty with the university example is that schools are publicly funded and THAT is why the dean cannot just accept the brightest and smartest and most able students. As a society comprising all colors, races, creeds, religions, both sexes, blonds and brunettes and red heads, curly and straight hair, and whatever other categories, it behooves us to understand our capabilities and differences and to do all we can to be a “rising tide lifting all boats.” Can’t do that by pretending differences do not exist. Example: More women for time out of mind played little girl games as children than those who didn’t. So. Work with it. Not against it. Maybe they make the best doctors, if we can help them through the maths they need to know that have proved easier for men to learn than women.
Respect both these men greatly. Sam especially because he dared to interview Charles Murray. I’ve listened to Glenn a lot more, and especially enjoyed his talks with John McWhorter. I have to say, while Sam’s argument about race should be regarded like hair color would be neat, it isn’t and part of why it isn’t is that there are all kinds of movements and agendas going on to bring about “equity” for non-whites, so we cannot just not pay attention. We need to figure out how to bring about the non-interest Sam wishes for. I can’t say I know a lot about why or how IQ develops as it does, but I have to think that Asians studying 365 days a year bodes well for them, while whites studying only 2/3rd of that time may not end up as intelligent, and that is only ONE factor out of many many factors. How much do whites dumb themselves down with drugs or alcohol for example? How would an IQ test done on men using only feminine questions turn out? Ditto, women tested on predominantly male subjects? True, it is not how we use IQ testing, but I think I’m making a useful point here. I don’t think we are all truly blank slates to start with and how we live has impact on our ultimate intelligence.
I had a similar reaction to Sam's hair color analogy. It's not really "we" as a society who make that call. It's the blondes. And I suspect if blondes voted 95 percent for one political party, there'd be 500 political action committees with the word "blonde" in them.
P.S. To bring about the non-interest that Sam wishes for, we ought to stop using quotas in employment and university applications and make these things merit-based. If I’m a business, I want the most qualified person doing the work I need someone to do and I don’t care about anything else and I set the standard for those qualifications. If I’m a dean at a university I want the smartest and brightest in my school. Those who don’t make the grade should go to lesser schools until they can meet the grade. I am sure this sounds just horrible, but please know I am very empathetic and want all people to succeed, so please read on. It comes down to economics, always! A difficulty with the university example is that schools are publicly funded and THAT is why the dean cannot just accept the brightest and smartest and most able students. As a society comprising all colors, races, creeds, religions, both sexes, blonds and brunettes and red heads, curly and straight hair, and whatever other categories, it behooves us to understand our capabilities and differences and to do all we can to be a “rising tide lifting all boats.” Can’t do that by pretending differences do not exist. Example: More women for time out of mind played little girl games as children than those who didn’t. So. Work with it. Not against it. Maybe they make the best doctors, if we can help them through the maths they need to know that have proved easier for men to learn than women.