Yes, if your child is unable to pass an SAT, he or she should find job training instead of college. Why would anyone be allowed to change that standard?. Because we're weak.
YES Free Amy Wax!!! Thank you Glenn, awesome on every level. I am proud of you, ie one human to another. You are evolving before our eyes, becoming that elite seeker of truth in the aspect of the Virtues that you embody- ie Courage and genuine Humility, among others provide foundation for your God given Intelligence. You are looking like you're headed for the heights. Thanks to the Creator of the Universe for your devotion to the True, Good and Beautiful and for your love of our country.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Woke leads to some messed up political and social consequences downstream. Assuming for the sake of argument that inculcating a belief that racial differences are biological and there are inherent differences based on genetic potential between races will wipe out wokeness. Is there any reason that this anti-wokeness doesn't lead to even more horrific political consequences downstream? Historically, you don't even have to look at Nazi Germany. Would you really want to live in apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow Mississippi? It seems like any regime historically with this race realist ideology is usually a fascist shithole.
I think you are misinterpreting. Saying that there are differences in people, and of course there are, is not the same as saying anyone is inferior. DEI and Wokeism is a means toward justifying racism, not eradicating it. We all see different things from different perspectives, but I see no indication that 'right wingers' are prone to racist acts. Yes, people calling themselves right-wingers have committed violent, racist acts, but only a tiny percentage. And there has been equal, if not more, racist violence from left-wingers.
Just examine people such as Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder and Tim Scott. They are black. Are the 'woke folk' glad to see their success? They are not. Progressives spew hatred and intolerance at them for having the audacity to not support woke progressive ideology. It is a complete lie that DEI is in place to counter bigotry. It is there to PROMOTE bigotry. But, not against blacks; rather it's against anti-progressives. Just do a little looking and a little thinking. Try to rationalize that DEI equally promotes all minorities, regardless of their political, cultural or religious perspectives.
"What do we do with the fact that measured intelligence varies between racial groups?"
We do nothing with it. Why would we want to?
We don't hire groups; we hire individuals. We don't admit groups; we admit individuals. We're not friends with groups; we're friends with individuals. The fact that any given group average (of anything!) is higher or lower than a different group's average is meaningless in every way that counts.
What matters in our human interactions is our human abilities as they are displayed & demonstrated, individual by individual. Group averages are absurd for everyone but sociologists.
If we begin with a color-blind commitment, meaning that we will define our standards, and create our process hurdles to be 'blind' to any given individual's race or color, then process outcomes simply are what they are. If there is a racial imbalance in that outcome, it's NOT the process at fault (if fault is to be had), it's the input quality of those who participate. We don't need to invoke 'race realism' to accept that imbalance....we only need to accept the fact that the standards & process hurdles that yielded the imbalance are themselves race-neutral, making the outcomes non-racist even if they are imbalanced.
For all the rest of us, that's fine; that's life. Better players start even if it means that starting team is racially imbalanced. No one cares. And we don't care because we're also sure that even if our group's average is higher or lower than a different group's average, that we ourselves will start if we ourseves are better. Group averages be damned.
But for the Social Engineer, convinced that life really should be arithmetically fair & balanced & even in all ways at all times, then every demographic imbalance is a nail in need of a hammer. It doesn't matter if women don't want to be lumberjacks, 50% of all lumberjacks must be women. It doesn't matter if men don't want to be pre-school teachers or dental hygienists....50% of both must be men.
Thus we see the monstrously horrific corruption of our institutions....the dissolution of standards....the death of quality...all pursued to make the Group Average look better. And it doesn't matter if the Social Engineer has to actively discriminate on the basis of color to make that happen...heck, you can't make an omelet without breaking a whole bunch of eggs. And if that doesn't work, well dammit, break some more!
Race identity is self-reported. How valid are statistics based on self-reported data. There are so many statistics in other domains that are based on self-reports and the validity of such reports are often considered suspect. Racial Realism is a political concept, nothing scientific about it.
I work in the tech world, at this point doing Computer Security. Intelligence is crtically important when dealing with deeper understanding of the real and abstract world (Physics, Math, ....), and intelligence is critical in red vs blue competitions where the relative intelligence of each side is likely to be critically important. Trade and product engineering roughly fall into red vs blue. The workforce in these areas is heavily foreign and immigrant based.
The discussion of the justice of intelligence based rewards is ridiculous. You can choose to willfully fail or you can try and do the best you can with the resources you have domestically and can recruit internationally. You may still fail even if you try, but choosing to fail is suicide.
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.
It was very strange. As one great writer said, you should know who are you talking to. Seemed like Coleman was just repeating his (imho, wrong ones) deep philosophical theses he always has ready, regardless the arguments and levels of questioners.
Yes, if your child is unable to pass an SAT, he or she should find job training instead of college. Why would anyone be allowed to change that standard?. Because we're weak.
Glenn,
YES Free Amy Wax!!! Thank you Glenn, awesome on every level. I am proud of you, ie one human to another. You are evolving before our eyes, becoming that elite seeker of truth in the aspect of the Virtues that you embody- ie Courage and genuine Humility, among others provide foundation for your God given Intelligence. You are looking like you're headed for the heights. Thanks to the Creator of the Universe for your devotion to the True, Good and Beautiful and for your love of our country.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Woke leads to some messed up political and social consequences downstream. Assuming for the sake of argument that inculcating a belief that racial differences are biological and there are inherent differences based on genetic potential between races will wipe out wokeness. Is there any reason that this anti-wokeness doesn't lead to even more horrific political consequences downstream? Historically, you don't even have to look at Nazi Germany. Would you really want to live in apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow Mississippi? It seems like any regime historically with this race realist ideology is usually a fascist shithole.
I think you are misinterpreting. Saying that there are differences in people, and of course there are, is not the same as saying anyone is inferior. DEI and Wokeism is a means toward justifying racism, not eradicating it. We all see different things from different perspectives, but I see no indication that 'right wingers' are prone to racist acts. Yes, people calling themselves right-wingers have committed violent, racist acts, but only a tiny percentage. And there has been equal, if not more, racist violence from left-wingers.
Just examine people such as Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder and Tim Scott. They are black. Are the 'woke folk' glad to see their success? They are not. Progressives spew hatred and intolerance at them for having the audacity to not support woke progressive ideology. It is a complete lie that DEI is in place to counter bigotry. It is there to PROMOTE bigotry. But, not against blacks; rather it's against anti-progressives. Just do a little looking and a little thinking. Try to rationalize that DEI equally promotes all minorities, regardless of their political, cultural or religious perspectives.
"What do we do with the fact that measured intelligence varies between racial groups?"
We do nothing with it. Why would we want to?
We don't hire groups; we hire individuals. We don't admit groups; we admit individuals. We're not friends with groups; we're friends with individuals. The fact that any given group average (of anything!) is higher or lower than a different group's average is meaningless in every way that counts.
What matters in our human interactions is our human abilities as they are displayed & demonstrated, individual by individual. Group averages are absurd for everyone but sociologists.
If we begin with a color-blind commitment, meaning that we will define our standards, and create our process hurdles to be 'blind' to any given individual's race or color, then process outcomes simply are what they are. If there is a racial imbalance in that outcome, it's NOT the process at fault (if fault is to be had), it's the input quality of those who participate. We don't need to invoke 'race realism' to accept that imbalance....we only need to accept the fact that the standards & process hurdles that yielded the imbalance are themselves race-neutral, making the outcomes non-racist even if they are imbalanced.
For all the rest of us, that's fine; that's life. Better players start even if it means that starting team is racially imbalanced. No one cares. And we don't care because we're also sure that even if our group's average is higher or lower than a different group's average, that we ourselves will start if we ourseves are better. Group averages be damned.
But for the Social Engineer, convinced that life really should be arithmetically fair & balanced & even in all ways at all times, then every demographic imbalance is a nail in need of a hammer. It doesn't matter if women don't want to be lumberjacks, 50% of all lumberjacks must be women. It doesn't matter if men don't want to be pre-school teachers or dental hygienists....50% of both must be men.
Thus we see the monstrously horrific corruption of our institutions....the dissolution of standards....the death of quality...all pursued to make the Group Average look better. And it doesn't matter if the Social Engineer has to actively discriminate on the basis of color to make that happen...heck, you can't make an omelet without breaking a whole bunch of eggs. And if that doesn't work, well dammit, break some more!
A welcome dose of clarity.
Race identity is self-reported. How valid are statistics based on self-reported data. There are so many statistics in other domains that are based on self-reports and the validity of such reports are often considered suspect. Racial Realism is a political concept, nothing scientific about it.
What isn't political?
Good points.
I work in the tech world, at this point doing Computer Security. Intelligence is crtically important when dealing with deeper understanding of the real and abstract world (Physics, Math, ....), and intelligence is critical in red vs blue competitions where the relative intelligence of each side is likely to be critically important. Trade and product engineering roughly fall into red vs blue. The workforce in these areas is heavily foreign and immigrant based.
The discussion of the justice of intelligence based rewards is ridiculous. You can choose to willfully fail or you can try and do the best you can with the resources you have domestically and can recruit internationally. You may still fail even if you try, but choosing to fail is suicide.
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.
Dr. Loury and readers, Have you seen Coleman Hughes appearance on The View yesterday? Thoughts?
https://twitter.com/julesterpak/status/1773120245726634118
It was very strange. As one great writer said, you should know who are you talking to. Seemed like Coleman was just repeating his (imho, wrong ones) deep philosophical theses he always has ready, regardless the arguments and levels of questioners.