I remember reading about the Lubinsky study that Amy Wax alluded to, which I believe followed individuals who scored above a certain threshold on the SAT at an early age and tracked those people into adulthood. If I remember correctly, the conclusion was that there was a demonstrable difference in achievement between those who were merely 1 in 100 in cognitive ability vs those who were 1 in 10,000. Individuals also tended to gravitate towards specific fields based upon their respective math/verbal split.
There may be diminishing returns to IQ in many areas of life and specific domains may very well have IQ thresholds above which non-cognitive factors start to matter more. But my takeaway is that there are always areas in life that one is prevented from becoming successful at simply because one may not be smart enough. If there actually is a point beyond which being smarter doesn't confer any additional advantages, I'd wager that it's around the +4 SD threshold.
I agree with Amy that the belief that racial disparities are ipso facto evidence of systemic racism almost certainly invites alternative hypotheses. But I'm not convinced that the only antidote to DEI is race realism. The NBA and NFL are disproportionately dominated by Black players and my impression is that this is accepted without necessarily a public clamor for greater diversity or an assertion that race realism explains the demographics of professional basketball and football.
Basketball and football team membership makes evident that DEI is administered, not scientifically nor professionally- but randomly like when I purchase at the candy shop.
Well, pro sports doesn’t require an antidote to DEI because there is no DEI there. That is because of which groups are dominant. This applies to athletes but not coaches/managers.
I think my point was more that the response to DEI doesn't necessarily need to be race realism. Rather we can aim for an equilibrium where neither mindset is salient. I'd prefer the pushback against DEI be along the lines of advocating for colorblindness and meritocracy rather than trotting out Charles Murray. I think Coleman Hughes does an admirable job of this, although as I've argued elsewhere I believe he overstates the appeal of colorblindness by suggesting that race should be totally irrelevant to how people understand and view themselves.
I’m not disagreeing with Charles Murray. I just don’t think race realism needs to be the primary antidote to DEI. As a political strategy it's almost certainly going to make most people less amenable to meritocracy rather than more so.
I remember reading about the Lubinsky study that Amy Wax alluded to, which I believe followed individuals who scored above a certain threshold on the SAT at an early age and tracked those people into adulthood. If I remember correctly, the conclusion was that there was a demonstrable difference in achievement between those who were merely 1 in 100 in cognitive ability vs those who were 1 in 10,000. Individuals also tended to gravitate towards specific fields based upon their respective math/verbal split.
There may be diminishing returns to IQ in many areas of life and specific domains may very well have IQ thresholds above which non-cognitive factors start to matter more. But my takeaway is that there are always areas in life that one is prevented from becoming successful at simply because one may not be smart enough. If there actually is a point beyond which being smarter doesn't confer any additional advantages, I'd wager that it's around the +4 SD threshold.
I agree with Amy that the belief that racial disparities are ipso facto evidence of systemic racism almost certainly invites alternative hypotheses. But I'm not convinced that the only antidote to DEI is race realism. The NBA and NFL are disproportionately dominated by Black players and my impression is that this is accepted without necessarily a public clamor for greater diversity or an assertion that race realism explains the demographics of professional basketball and football.
Basketball and football team membership makes evident that DEI is administered, not scientifically nor professionally- but randomly like when I purchase at the candy shop.
Well, pro sports doesn’t require an antidote to DEI because there is no DEI there. That is because of which groups are dominant. This applies to athletes but not coaches/managers.
I think my point was more that the response to DEI doesn't necessarily need to be race realism. Rather we can aim for an equilibrium where neither mindset is salient. I'd prefer the pushback against DEI be along the lines of advocating for colorblindness and meritocracy rather than trotting out Charles Murray. I think Coleman Hughes does an admirable job of this, although as I've argued elsewhere I believe he overstates the appeal of colorblindness by suggesting that race should be totally irrelevant to how people understand and view themselves.
Charles Murray did science and reported his findings. Why do you dislike science?
I’m not disagreeing with Charles Murray. I just don’t think race realism needs to be the primary antidote to DEI. As a political strategy it's almost certainly going to make most people less amenable to meritocracy rather than more so.