Lunatics running the asylum. When I attend a public or community meeting, where comments/feedback are requested- sometimes I am mentally lazy because I am not being graded. The grading-scheme serves a purpose, is misunderstood and not defended.
Although “not the real world”, grading mimics the competitive reality of many competing for few positions. At work, I competed in the area of job performance based on my experience at school. At school and work, I wanted to become an elite performer and I admired those who were.
The highly-paid administrators/directors are not doing their job. Historically; grievances over “grading” are expected to demonstrate relevant or physical circumstances. During 1980’s undergrad, I complained about a narrative comment from professor because I was referred to as “she”, and I wanted it changed to “he”.
This particular comments section is fairly strong evidence as to why Dr. G and Mr. Sussman have to regulate some of the language around here. If they didn't, this place would turn into yet another haven for White nationalists and their sympathizers. I've seen it happen on too many boutique platforms.
Dr. G and Mr. Sussman are not friends of that movement, but Dr. G's politics are on the right and that's where that lot lives. That's just fact.
Ergo, it's tricky. Most of us around here value free speech in a big way. Most of us also value decency, intellect, logic and the universality of humanity. But White nationalism? Let's just say they don't check all those boxes.
I've been following the comments as closely as I can. The handful of comments I saw that might have gotten close to the line garnered responses—many of them critical—before I had a chance to decide what to do. Given that deleting the original comment would have rendered those responses meaningless, I chose to leave everything as is.
I have read nearly all the comments and didn’t see any I thought borderlined on needing censorship. Can you educate us by listing the ones that most concerned you? Ty
To be clear, Mark, I was not complaining. And I do not want anyone censored... (especially the ones talking to me=)) But I appreciate your concern and diligence.
I don't find the blatant anti-Blackness exhibited by some here to be particularly productive and I'm not merely referring to those discussing the topic of race and IQ. To me there's a residual anti-Blackness among some that transcends any dispassionate discussion of group differences. I used to hang around various alt-right sites and the two biggest complaints were always regarding the Blacks and the Jews, typically voiced in extremely unproductive fashion.
That being said, it’s hard for me to argue that anything here has been said that’s so egregious that it merits censorship, although obviously that decision isn’t mine to make. I applaud the levelheadedness of people like yourself and Glenn who are able to tackle alt-right and white nationalist adjacent commentary head on. Ultimately, I think we’re better off talking to one another rather than just muting what we find to be objectionable.
What actually irks me more than the fact that some people seem unproductively obsessed with the Blacks or the Jews is when these individuals aren’t even paid subscribers to the sites they comment so heavily on. Alas.
"typically voiced in extremely unproductive fashion"
You have a way with words, Yan =)
"it’s hard for me to argue that anything has been said here that’s so egregious that it merits censorship"
Totally agree; and I generally agree with everything you've said here. And just so I am not misunderstood, a person would have to go a *very* long way before you saw me advocate actual suppression of free expression.
What bothers me about the right--esp. today--is abominable inconsistency, particularly on the issue of race relations, but in other areas as well.
Regarding “What bothers me about the right--esp. today--is abominable inconsistency..”; look first at the Democratic Party. The party of slavery. The party today that endorses endless wars, racism against whites, sexism against straight men, abortions against innocent children, abandonment of the urban poor by allowing criminals to stay in the street, endorsing teachers Union that results in horrific urban test scores and uneducated masses, and censorship of freedom of speech. They have screwed black men for a century and have been coming after poor whites since Vietnam (poor white men bore more deaths and casualties at higher rate than any other group and still do in combat). I’m a veteran and studied this.
Part of me wants to ask, "Why should we *first* look at the Democratic Party? Another part of me wants to ask, "What does any of this have to do with anything I said?" But I won't be asking questions like that today. I will simply state the following:
Libertarian, your response to my criticism of the right is typical. For far too long, it's as if any criticism of the right vis-à-vis race issues is destined to trigger someone to remind us about the Democratic Party's racist history (i.e., slavery and Jim Crow).
It's a history that literally no one denies nor defends, but that doesn't seem to matter. Apparently it doesn't matter if the criticisms previously levelled at the right were fair or legit. Apparently it doesn't matter if the person making the criticisms is in fact a component of the right himself.
I don't know if it matters ultimately, but I am a paid subscriber to The Glenn Show and it's not by accident. "Libertarian" is actually a term I use to describe my own politics (at least in part). I am a *huge* fan of free market capitalism, free speech and individual liberty; and have been for many, many years. The venerable Thomas Sowell--if I'm honest about it--shaped my world views in the 80s/90s, especially regarding economics and race; and philosophically, I haven't changed.
Granted today, Sowell and I would disagree vehemently about certain aspects of today's major political parties (i.e., which one is the most inimical at the moment). But hey, that happens. We are free people. We think freely. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree.
I will not address any of your points, partly because you kind of established some ground rules in this exchange. That is to say, neither of us (evidently) is terribly interested in addressing the other person's points.
But we had to get something off our chests. Good enough for me.
I get where you're coming from. Don't let the haters get to you. Scott Adams and various commentators here aside, I still believe that most Americans are interested in working productively to improve race relations in this country.
Let's see how much you appreciate the reaction of other commenters on Glenn Loury's substack to your call for comment censorship and the suppression of those seeking and participating in open debate and discussion. I'm guessing you'll be somewhat taken aback.
I'm pretty sure I didn't "call for" anything =) Not to mention, I have no sway with management at The Glenn Show.
More importantly, you REALLY got me confused with someone else, Rich. The LAST thing I want is to put the muzzle on guys like you. I want you to talk as much and as LOUDLY as humanly possible. Trust me.
And for the record, I was making reference to a specific moment when Glenn & Co. confessed to a very rare and minor suppression of voices in the comments section--they explained why at the time.
If you weren't aware of the above incident, I can see why it seemed like I was calling for suppression of free speech. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
Grade Inflation: Yep. I recently went to a university graduation ceremony where roughly half the graduates were "honored" for being Summa Cum Laude, which in this case meant they had a GPA of 3.9 or higher ... evidently a "B+" at this institution of "higher learning" is equivalent to the classic "C."
"...equal in God's eyes..." When the apostle Paul talks about equality in Christ (Rom. 10:12; Col. 3:11) he's not talking about talent, ability, or accomplishments -- he's talking about intrinsic value as an adopted child of God. This is likely the model for the Declaration of Independence statement that "all men are created equal." It is folly to claim that equality in Christ means everyone has equal talents and abilities, given the discussions of differing spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12 through 1 Cor. 14), differing individual purposes (Jer. 18:4-11; Rom. 9:21), and differing outcomes and roles throughout scripture (Abel vs Cain; Abraham vs Lot; Esau vs Jacob; Joseph vs his brothers; Levi vs the other tribes of Israel; the laborers hired late in the day vs the laborers hired early in the day in the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard in Matt. 20; Stephen vs Saul of Tarsus; etc.).
Culture: I am currently convinced that your point about many blacks in American suffering because of culture is correct. I saw a Hoover Institute interview with Dr. Thomas Sowell in which he described his research on this. He found evidence that black immigrants from other cultures do well in the US. He found evidence that black children born in the US do as well as white children when they are removed from black culture in the US and placed into schools near military bases in Germany. He found evidence that white children who are raised in a "ghetto" culture do poorly. The really interesting thing he asserted is that the modern "ghetto" culture is directly related to an older "redneck" culture that has largely died out in the southern states, and originally came from a specific region of England (through immigrants) where it has also largely died out. This was surprising to me, in large measure, because there seems to be this idea in the current zeitgeist that popular black culture originated in Africa ... but if Sowell is correct, it is instead a very poorly chosen cultural appropriation from old England.
If you haven't already, try reading David Hackett Fischer's excellent "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. " Fischer describes the heritage (traces of which are still seen today) of the early migration and settlement in America of British Puritans (New England), Cavaliers (South), Quakers (Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic), and Scots-Irish (Appalachia). Fascinating stuff!
Interestingly, if you look up statistics on the Appalachian community which is predominately White, you will see much correlation with inner-city minority communities as far as disrupted family structure, poor health, poor education, and drug and alcohol abuse. This is about a 10 year old article on the matter.
Regardless of whether or not IQ or any other factors come into play, there clearly are underclasses in this country of both races that have issues that need to be addressed, and the causes are multifactorial.
Love your insights. Thank-you both. My understanding of the intelligence disparity of races is primarily due to amount of Neanderthal DNA one has. In order of most Neanderthal DNA to least it is Asians, Indians, Whites, Blacks and average IQ scores correlate to this 100%. I believe we are all created by Jesus equal in soul and spirit but certainly not in average height, athleticism, disease profile, skin color or intelligence. And of course many Blacks are smarter than many Asians and Whites; these are averages but they nonetheless are a compelling argument on how DNA impacts IQ.
Look at ratings systems. If you give less than five stars (out of five), it's seen as a death sentence. The vast majority of ratings are either five or one -- people don't understand the concept of nuance, of degrees. It's all or nothing anymore.
I know mentioning The Bell Curve is supposed to be absolutely taboo. I've read it completely.
But, what I've never heard is the possibility that chapter 18 might be stating the truth.
Have any of our education policies ever taken into consideration that approximately half of our population has below average IQ? Some not ever intelligent enough to feed themselves in America, The Land of Opportunity!
LeBron James has done more for school children through his donations than you clowns. The most successful basketball player of this era has given millions for after school programs. He encourages students to work hard and do well in class. I give this article a C-.
Part of the answer may have been explicated by Alex Haley in The Autobiography of Malcolm X: "If someone is doing the task as you are and having more success, then look at what they do differently and adopt that methodology." [I'm paraphrasing. It's from the parable about hunting rabbits.]
Gents, you missed a big part of this boat. Too much. Ergo, I must opine.
Incidentally, I have been observing Scott Adams' Twitter somewhat closely since this brouhaha began. Evidently, Elon's algorithms insist that we see Adams' dumbest tweets as often as possible for the time being.
Bottom line, Scott is/was playing a silly, race-baiting game. NO one has been "performing" more than Adams over the last week or so. Why? Who knows? But one thing that is clear: He is NOT trying to open up a serious conversation about a serious or timely topic. Period. At best, he's (mostly) amusing himself and his followers.
I say this partly because only days after this so-called "bold and courageous stance on race", he was back-pedaling like a little you-know-what. It has been a PATHETIC spectacle lol
One day, he's like, "Black people are a hate group."
Next day he's like, "Omg, I've been cancelled by the libruhl media!"
Next day, "You know, Black conservatives have been good to me through all this."
Next day, "You know, it's the White progressives who are the problem!"
Next day, "I've been taken out of context, bro!"
The next day, people like me are trying to indulge his butt: "Okay then, Scott, what's the damn context??"
"It's in the original video! The libruhl media keeps misleading you!"
Okay, Scott! Then do us all a favor and repost "the proper context" so we can clear your good name? How about that?
"I'm still a victim! It hurts so bad! Cancel Culture! Omg!"
It's like, man, just shut up lol
Interestingly, he even started tellin' people to distrust Fox News. (I guess Tucker & Friends ain't "rightwing-woke" enough lol)
Trust me, between Elon, Newsmax and American Renaissance, Scott Adams ain't nowhere near "silenced".
At any rate, if we are going to call out the bs we see on the left--and yes, there is a TON--can we PLEASE not pretend like there isn't an AVALANCHE of snowflakey, hypocritical, thoughtless, emotionalist bs on the right--and on a regular basis. Because as much as I hate to report it, there is. And Scott Adams' victimhood is a prime example.
One other thing: John was WAY too nice when he pointed out how Adams avoided nuance in his "assessment" of that poll. It was more like "Yes. Adams left out a MEGATON of nuance"--and very basic truths, too.
Scott basically took 20% of the respondents to a poll and magically turned them into "half", and then made that false half a reason to "get away from ALL of 'em". Because "this"--whatever the hell "this" is--"can't be fixed" (whatever the hell that means lol).
Scott pretended like the question per se wasn't a weird one to begin with. He also pretended like the phrase, "It's okay to be White", wasn't in fact the spawn of 4chan trolls and self-avowed White nationalists. (Which it is, folks. That is a fact.)
Now he wants to back-pedal and play victim. No reason to respect this. The fact that Adams may have stumbled into a subject in dire need of serious exploration is not an indication of his good faith or anybody else's--AT ALL.
He's a 69-year-old adolescent, a joke, a provocateur, and sadly a sign of the times.
Nearly everyone on the left is a "__-old adolescent, a joke, a provocateur" and so that's why Adams doesn't bother me that much. Hopefully, he's learned from this incident.
The hypocritical reaction to Adams from the right is what bothers me far more than Adams himself. Unfortunately I could say that about a number of subjects.
It all comes down to IQ and you guys know that and normally are not afraid to speak about it. Until we all accept that fact and work out solutions with that in mind ..... we will never advance. This is not racist thinking .... it's saying it like it is!
Why are there differences in IQ? Based on Dr. Sowell's research, it's likely not due to any significant difference in innate capability. Rather, it's due to cultural differences throughout childhood.
Here are references that suggest differences are significantly impacted by genes also. Contrary to many hopes and some claims, the narrowing of the gap in social conditions between Blacks and Whites has not led to any change in the magnitude of the Black- White IQ difference in over 100 years. Massive society-wide interventions such as ending segregation, the subsequent nationwide program of school busing to achieve racial bal- ance, and the Head Start programs have failed to reduce this difference. Head Start programs did produce modest gains in school retention and graduation rates among Whites—but not Blacks [193]. Other large scale, often well-publicized, countywide amelioration projects have not reduced the Black-White achievement gap (despite desirably low stu- dent-teacher ratios and computers in every classroom) [8]. Adjusting for socioeconomic status, which itself contains much heritable variance, only reduces the Black-White IQ difference by about one-third [8].” https://openpsychologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V3/TOPSYJ-3-9/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdf
I'm no expert on the topic, but I think it may be easier to show significant gene-driven differences between individual families than averaged across entire populations of this "race" versus that "race." Here are a few points to ponder, if you tend to think the primary differences between different populations are genetic.
In his book "Wealth, Poverty and Politics," Sowell notes that 'Mental tests given to American soldiers during the First World War ... showed that whites from some Southern states scored lower than blacks from some Northern states.'
"The research of professor James R. Flynn... has revealed that the number of questions answered correctly on IQ tests has risen very substantially in more than a dozen nations, in just one generation... The amount by which IQ test performance has improved for whole nations exceeds the IQ difference between blacks and whites in the United States..."
"... the average IQ difference between black and white Americans -- 15 points -- was nothing unusual. Similar IQ differences could be found between various culturally isolated white communities and the general society, both in the United States and in Britain... Professor Flynn [was] able to discover that whole nations had, in effect, had their IQs rising over the decades by about 20 points... In the half century between 1945 and 1995, black Americans’ raw test scores rose by the equivalent of 16 IQ points."
Observations that point to the malleability of IQ independent of genetics:
(1) The first-born child has higher IQ than a later born child.
(2) The only child has a higher IQ than the average first-born child.
(3) Twins have lower IQ than singly-born children on average.
(4) In cases where twins were conceived but one child was stillborn, the surviving twin has, on average, an IQ non-distinguished from singly-born children.
Nonsense. The genetic basis for IQ (its heritability in the parlance) is generally estimated at between 60% to 80% for late adolescents and young adults. Non-genetic factors (which is NOT to say social environment) account for the remainder. You really need to get into the various twin studies to tease out the (non-)effects of culture on IQ.
60-80% impact from genes is huge. I didn’t say it was 100%. I said the averages are highly positively correlated to the average amount of Neanderthal DNA in a given race.
Curious, I had not heard the connection with Neanderthal DNA. My only understanding of Neanderthal DNA is that it made them risk averse, and potentially the reason why they died out ( they did not want to move from happy hunting grounds, even as the ice rolled in.)
I was addressing ADStryker's comment that IQ lacks a significant innate (genetic) component and is largely determined by social environment (culture) during childhood.
I think it is really to do with the wealth or lack thereof of average Neanderthal DNA in each race’s genes (because it is very highly positively correlated).
Why can't you, Terry? Is it because you aren't capable? Is it because you think I can't handle it? Is answering my question going to disrupt some master plan?
I doubt that any of the above is true.
And btw, I don't need a "satisfactory" answer. Just an answer. Anything resembling substance would work for me. Because seriously, I have observed "race realist" talk--they used to call it "racialist" in the late 90s--for 20-30 years at least. But I never hear their Part II. It's always about what "we" are currently avoiding and why. But never about what "we" would be doing if "we" acknowledged IQ.
I thought you might be in the mood to indulge me. If not, so be it.
Hi Charles, average IQ for races is highly positively correlated to amount Neanderthal DNA the races have. In order, it is highest in Asians, Indians, Whites, Blacks. Same order as average IQ scores highest to lowest. Look it up. So the reason Terry or anyone else may not have an easy fix is because it ovolved over hundreds of thousands of years and in very complex ways. Kind regards, no name calling please. I am sincerely giving you a viable path to research more.
The Neanderthal DNA to IQ correlation is just a correlation, correct? I will admit I have not done much reading on the topic. But if it is simply a correlation then it's a prime "correlation does not imply causation" candidate. Has there been any good research on that specific correlation? Not just identifying Neanderthal genes and their presence in certain groups, but linking specific genes to IQ.
Hi Steve, There has been a number of papers published on it. Naturally it’s a delicate subject. I suspect it is causation given it appears to occur across the earth consistently and for generations (starting when scores were kept). I had 3 references in other comments if you can find them. Take care.
A. I'm curious what made you say 'no name calling'. Did you anticipate me calling you a name? =) If so, why?
B. I wasn't asking for an easy fix to anything. Respectfully, it's like we're all talking past each other here.
I was asking Terry why he thinks he couldn't "satisfy my curiosity", when I'm not even sure he knows what I'm curious about.
C. With respect to your thoughts, I've heard about that stuff for literally decades. This is hardly new territory for me. I assume the data is fundamentally true. (What choice do I have? lol)
I also happen to think there are deeper and more interesting questions in this realm. But regardless, my question today is the same as it was decades ago: "So what?"
What are we as a society supposed to do differently? (i.e., now that we have this "new", decades-old information?)
My larger question is "Why are we racializing this stuff at all?" (Of course I think I know why SOME people are doing it, but whatever.)
Again, I'm not looking for an easy fix to anything. Not sure why you got that impression. I'm looking for an honest answer (even though I think I already know what it is).
A. I thought you came across as sarcastic in your replies to others.
B. Fair enough
C. I can’t field all the questions here and now but I’m some; having a scientifically sound insight on what causes groups to have higher or lower IQs allows us to invest scarce resources more optimally (as opposed to how horribly they are invested now). It could be abused of course; just like the metrics in place now are biased and corrupt.
In sum, I mis-judged you (sorry) and do hope people smarter than me (with a big Neanderthal DNA footprint or not) can find workable solutions to the systemic destruction of blacks by woke Dems.
To which "Indians" are you referring? The residents of India, the country, or Amerindians (Native Americans)? I was unaware either group is lodged between (East) Asians and (European) whites in terms of average IQ.
Indians in India. Apparently what happened is that the humanoids who migrated out of Africa interbred with Neanderthals as they moved through Europe, India and Asia. Those that stayed in Africa didn’t significantly interbreed with Neanderthals and thus have little to no Neanderthal DNA.
I would think acknowledging racial differences in cognitive ability (IQ for short) would be akin to acknowledging racial differences in athletic ability. Americans tend not to get their knickers in a twist over African American dominance in selected positions in American football and in all positions in basketball or East African dominance in marathon running. Rather, individual talent is carefully assessed and black athletes offered often lucrative contracts based on what their talent and personality can deliver to the sports team and its audience.
Regarding IQ specifically, we should expect to see, similarly to what we DO see in professional athletics, participation of racial groups in different proportions than their representation in the larger population. Those racial or ethnic groups with lower average IQs would tend to be underrepresented in fields, activities, and positions that demand high levels of cognitive ability. Other groups with average IQs higher than the norm can be expected to exhibit overrepresentation in those same areas.
Where things could get a bit sticky centers on whether lower average IQ impairs a given group's ability to appreciate and follow standards chosen by groups with higher average IQ. The question is whether individuals from low IQ groups can and should be expected to conform to social norms of all kinds or whether special accommodations can or should be extended to the group's members to lessen "social friction" associated with violation of those norms. Example areas where these differences might appear are impulse control in public situations, planning and performing to time commitments, and foregoing current pleasures in favor of future reward (time preference).
IN ANY CASE, individuals should be assessed and treated based on their individual character and behavior rather than markers of their various group identities. Hopefully, the above is more or less responsive to what you sought and failed to elicit in your previous exchange.
I appreciate your seriousness. But this doesn't answer my fundamental question, which, in fairness, I haven't made crystal clear in this thread.
"Why are we racializing this at all?" (That's question #1.)
If the real concern is how "we"--meaning "society", I guess?--treat (or should treat?) people with varying IQ's, why relegate this question to a concept as profoundly nebulous as "race"? We can slice and dice the human population six ways from Sunday. But why race?
We know why, if we're honest about it. Because there is a certain strain--frankly, on the right--that wants the world to acknowledge that Black people in particular are innately less capable intellectually. Why? So that people like them can act as they please--and encourage others to behave the way THEY want them to act--without the larger society viewing them as scum.
In other words, in some ways, they long for the days of old. They want to shape a world that guards White racial purity (another ridiculous concept).
They cover themselves by saying phrases like "on average", of course. But again, this is old stuff.
Of course, the minute I suggest that we also conduct studies on IQ differences that go beyond race, "strangely", they are not as enthusiastic. Sometimes they go silent.
I would LOVE to do a study on the IQ's of urban Northern White liberals versus rural Southern White Trump supporters. Purely in the name of science, of course. You can trust me, 100%. I would have zero political agenda there.
I won't speculate. I'll wait for the science. And let's not get our panties in a wad over the results. Whatever they are, we as a society will simply act accordingly.
Now, what would that mean? What would that look like? How should society behave once we concede that Group X is on average less intelligent than Group Y?
And THAT is my CENTRAL question--in both cases.
If the answer is to treat individuals as individuals, we didn't need to go through any of this.
So where is Barack Obama on all this? He has his foundation, ok. He is probably spending a lot of time puppeteering this sad administration. Why why why is there no comment from him now about cultural values — there used to be. He made a speech on Father’s Day years ago. Obama would be a powerful voice. Where is he?
I’m wondering if the schools doing this type of grading are run by people who were passed through schools that did the same type of grading for them? Is this the result of failing to educate? Therefore failing to provide the tools and solutions needed to solve the problem with education? Just wondering?
So yes Polly my point exactly is that the educational system in America needs reengineering and the the truth of the matter is that using the term reengineering is being kind. Yesterday’s meritocracy hinges upon whether not a truly reconciled system exists in the first place. Right now though it looks like the jury is still out. Thanks for your offering regarding because without dialogue when simply cannot reach the best possible solution. All the best. Oh and of course, we thank our professors.
Giving 50% for total failure just sets up the expectation that total failure is not total failure. Experiencing failing is part of one’s overall life experience and we shouldn’t be robbing children of it. Also, incentives are a powerful driver of human behavior. We have to be extremely careful with how we incentivize children. I think the superior approach if we are hoping to keep kids in school would be to remove one or two of the lower marks as components of total grade -- this does not abdicate the child from having to produce
Look at the cities; look at Philly and Baltimore as examples. Complete disasters with horrifying crime rates and 93% of kids not proficient in grade level math. Utter failures due to Woke Dem mayors and party. Democrats have optimized the destruction of Blacks by abortion, black on black crime, welfare and failed schools and teachers.
Where's the majority black city in America that is NOT a complete disaster? One run by Dems or Reps or Commies or the Gestapo or even some friendly aliens? Surely there's ONE somewhere in the entire country...I just can't put a name to it. Any help out there?
"A C on the transcript means he'll never get in the Yale Law School."
And? Maybe that kid is not Yale material. Not everyone is. Shuffling him through to appease the parents won't make him any more successful than giving the black no-show kid a 50. We are developing this habit of insisting that reality be reshaped into what we wish it was rather than what it is. The longer we make excuses for people - any people - the longer it will take for them to stand on their own. The longer that this grace period extends, they longer it takes for them to stop blaming race or some other outside factor for any negative outcome.
Young people will rise to, or fall to, your expectations. Henry Rogers, like any activist for any cause, is invested in perpetuating anything that allows him to claim that a problem is occurring. If black were kids were to start succeeding en masse on these tests, his schtick would be over. By the way, how did he manage to get by on those tests? How did all of other black "leaders" whose entire deck consists of the race card? The cultural argument is long overdue. That it's not happening speaks loudly about the goals of those "leaders." Like Rogers, they need a permanent underclass of black people whom they can claim to champion but never help, never challenge, never motivate.
Decades after I took the test, and all of the black kids who were later on my college campus took the test, we have managed to devolve in terms of expectations. We're still using 100 year old excuses, and the soft bigotry of low expectations has been institutionalized, now spreading to the C student of Glenn's nightmares. How many more generations must pass before we stop excusing lousy outcomes?
Agreeing with much of what you say, I nonetheless will offer a counterpoint:
Meritocracy is contingent on the accurate measurement of some sort of merit. Grades and standardized tests may be somewhat effective at this, but I also think that is increasingly dubious as they become more and more reflective of Ed school ideology and less reflective of the actual subject matter. Is it really the case that people with a C grade or who otherwise don't succeed academically are worse at the thing the test is supposed to be testing? Or are they perhaps simply not in alignment with the thinking of whoever wrote the test?
The "antiracist" version of this argument poses that minorities are excluded from opportunities due to the culturally constrained nature of the tests, which I think has to have at least some truth to it. But the argument doesn't have to be limited to that. How many of the world's great achievers in real life were also great achievers in school? The correlation is far less than proponents of systematized education would like us to believe.
Gravity is still gravity. The bell curve is still the bell curve. Reality still bites when it is ignored. Giving something unearned still injures the recipient.
Lunatics running the asylum. When I attend a public or community meeting, where comments/feedback are requested- sometimes I am mentally lazy because I am not being graded. The grading-scheme serves a purpose, is misunderstood and not defended.
Although “not the real world”, grading mimics the competitive reality of many competing for few positions. At work, I competed in the area of job performance based on my experience at school. At school and work, I wanted to become an elite performer and I admired those who were.
The highly-paid administrators/directors are not doing their job. Historically; grievances over “grading” are expected to demonstrate relevant or physical circumstances. During 1980’s undergrad, I complained about a narrative comment from professor because I was referred to as “she”, and I wanted it changed to “he”.
This particular comments section is fairly strong evidence as to why Dr. G and Mr. Sussman have to regulate some of the language around here. If they didn't, this place would turn into yet another haven for White nationalists and their sympathizers. I've seen it happen on too many boutique platforms.
Dr. G and Mr. Sussman are not friends of that movement, but Dr. G's politics are on the right and that's where that lot lives. That's just fact.
Ergo, it's tricky. Most of us around here value free speech in a big way. Most of us also value decency, intellect, logic and the universality of humanity. But White nationalism? Let's just say they don't check all those boxes.
I've been following the comments as closely as I can. The handful of comments I saw that might have gotten close to the line garnered responses—many of them critical—before I had a chance to decide what to do. Given that deleting the original comment would have rendered those responses meaningless, I chose to leave everything as is.
I have read nearly all the comments and didn’t see any I thought borderlined on needing censorship. Can you educate us by listing the ones that most concerned you? Ty
To be clear, Mark, I was not complaining. And I do not want anyone censored... (especially the ones talking to me=)) But I appreciate your concern and diligence.
I don't find the blatant anti-Blackness exhibited by some here to be particularly productive and I'm not merely referring to those discussing the topic of race and IQ. To me there's a residual anti-Blackness among some that transcends any dispassionate discussion of group differences. I used to hang around various alt-right sites and the two biggest complaints were always regarding the Blacks and the Jews, typically voiced in extremely unproductive fashion.
That being said, it’s hard for me to argue that anything here has been said that’s so egregious that it merits censorship, although obviously that decision isn’t mine to make. I applaud the levelheadedness of people like yourself and Glenn who are able to tackle alt-right and white nationalist adjacent commentary head on. Ultimately, I think we’re better off talking to one another rather than just muting what we find to be objectionable.
What actually irks me more than the fact that some people seem unproductively obsessed with the Blacks or the Jews is when these individuals aren’t even paid subscribers to the sites they comment so heavily on. Alas.
"typically voiced in extremely unproductive fashion"
You have a way with words, Yan =)
"it’s hard for me to argue that anything has been said here that’s so egregious that it merits censorship"
Totally agree; and I generally agree with everything you've said here. And just so I am not misunderstood, a person would have to go a *very* long way before you saw me advocate actual suppression of free expression.
What bothers me about the right--esp. today--is abominable inconsistency, particularly on the issue of race relations, but in other areas as well.
That is a longer conversation. Thanks.
Regarding “What bothers me about the right--esp. today--is abominable inconsistency..”; look first at the Democratic Party. The party of slavery. The party today that endorses endless wars, racism against whites, sexism against straight men, abortions against innocent children, abandonment of the urban poor by allowing criminals to stay in the street, endorsing teachers Union that results in horrific urban test scores and uneducated masses, and censorship of freedom of speech. They have screwed black men for a century and have been coming after poor whites since Vietnam (poor white men bore more deaths and casualties at higher rate than any other group and still do in combat). I’m a veteran and studied this.
"look first at the Democratic Party"
Part of me wants to ask, "Why should we *first* look at the Democratic Party? Another part of me wants to ask, "What does any of this have to do with anything I said?" But I won't be asking questions like that today. I will simply state the following:
Libertarian, your response to my criticism of the right is typical. For far too long, it's as if any criticism of the right vis-à-vis race issues is destined to trigger someone to remind us about the Democratic Party's racist history (i.e., slavery and Jim Crow).
It's a history that literally no one denies nor defends, but that doesn't seem to matter. Apparently it doesn't matter if the criticisms previously levelled at the right were fair or legit. Apparently it doesn't matter if the person making the criticisms is in fact a component of the right himself.
I don't know if it matters ultimately, but I am a paid subscriber to The Glenn Show and it's not by accident. "Libertarian" is actually a term I use to describe my own politics (at least in part). I am a *huge* fan of free market capitalism, free speech and individual liberty; and have been for many, many years. The venerable Thomas Sowell--if I'm honest about it--shaped my world views in the 80s/90s, especially regarding economics and race; and philosophically, I haven't changed.
Granted today, Sowell and I would disagree vehemently about certain aspects of today's major political parties (i.e., which one is the most inimical at the moment). But hey, that happens. We are free people. We think freely. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree.
I will not address any of your points, partly because you kind of established some ground rules in this exchange. That is to say, neither of us (evidently) is terribly interested in addressing the other person's points.
But we had to get something off our chests. Good enough for me.
I get where you're coming from. Don't let the haters get to you. Scott Adams and various commentators here aside, I still believe that most Americans are interested in working productively to improve race relations in this country.
So do I, Yen. I am quite clear about who is in the minority.
RAAACCCIIISSSTTTS!
Screw you, Chuck.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate that response. I feel like I owe you =)
Let's see how much you appreciate the reaction of other commenters on Glenn Loury's substack to your call for comment censorship and the suppression of those seeking and participating in open debate and discussion. I'm guessing you'll be somewhat taken aback.
P.S. You don't owe me a thing.
I'm pretty sure I didn't "call for" anything =) Not to mention, I have no sway with management at The Glenn Show.
More importantly, you REALLY got me confused with someone else, Rich. The LAST thing I want is to put the muzzle on guys like you. I want you to talk as much and as LOUDLY as humanly possible. Trust me.
And for the record, I was making reference to a specific moment when Glenn & Co. confessed to a very rare and minor suppression of voices in the comments section--they explained why at the time.
If you weren't aware of the above incident, I can see why it seemed like I was calling for suppression of free speech. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
Grade Inflation: Yep. I recently went to a university graduation ceremony where roughly half the graduates were "honored" for being Summa Cum Laude, which in this case meant they had a GPA of 3.9 or higher ... evidently a "B+" at this institution of "higher learning" is equivalent to the classic "C."
"...equal in God's eyes..." When the apostle Paul talks about equality in Christ (Rom. 10:12; Col. 3:11) he's not talking about talent, ability, or accomplishments -- he's talking about intrinsic value as an adopted child of God. This is likely the model for the Declaration of Independence statement that "all men are created equal." It is folly to claim that equality in Christ means everyone has equal talents and abilities, given the discussions of differing spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12 through 1 Cor. 14), differing individual purposes (Jer. 18:4-11; Rom. 9:21), and differing outcomes and roles throughout scripture (Abel vs Cain; Abraham vs Lot; Esau vs Jacob; Joseph vs his brothers; Levi vs the other tribes of Israel; the laborers hired late in the day vs the laborers hired early in the day in the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard in Matt. 20; Stephen vs Saul of Tarsus; etc.).
Culture: I am currently convinced that your point about many blacks in American suffering because of culture is correct. I saw a Hoover Institute interview with Dr. Thomas Sowell in which he described his research on this. He found evidence that black immigrants from other cultures do well in the US. He found evidence that black children born in the US do as well as white children when they are removed from black culture in the US and placed into schools near military bases in Germany. He found evidence that white children who are raised in a "ghetto" culture do poorly. The really interesting thing he asserted is that the modern "ghetto" culture is directly related to an older "redneck" culture that has largely died out in the southern states, and originally came from a specific region of England (through immigrants) where it has also largely died out. This was surprising to me, in large measure, because there seems to be this idea in the current zeitgeist that popular black culture originated in Africa ... but if Sowell is correct, it is instead a very poorly chosen cultural appropriation from old England.
If you haven't already, try reading David Hackett Fischer's excellent "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. " Fischer describes the heritage (traces of which are still seen today) of the early migration and settlement in America of British Puritans (New England), Cavaliers (South), Quakers (Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic), and Scots-Irish (Appalachia). Fascinating stuff!
Excellent book!
Based on a summary I just read, the "redneck" culture Sowell spoke of is probably associated with the Scots-Irish immigration.
Interestingly, if you look up statistics on the Appalachian community which is predominately White, you will see much correlation with inner-city minority communities as far as disrupted family structure, poor health, poor education, and drug and alcohol abuse. This is about a 10 year old article on the matter.
https://theweek.com/articles/452321/appalachia-big-white-ghetto
Here's a more recent article on the matter:
https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2021/01/06/human-rights-in-appalachia-socioeconomic-and-health-disparities-in-appalachia/
Regardless of whether or not IQ or any other factors come into play, there clearly are underclasses in this country of both races that have issues that need to be addressed, and the causes are multifactorial.
Love your insights. Thank-you both. My understanding of the intelligence disparity of races is primarily due to amount of Neanderthal DNA one has. In order of most Neanderthal DNA to least it is Asians, Indians, Whites, Blacks and average IQ scores correlate to this 100%. I believe we are all created by Jesus equal in soul and spirit but certainly not in average height, athleticism, disease profile, skin color or intelligence. And of course many Blacks are smarter than many Asians and Whites; these are averages but they nonetheless are a compelling argument on how DNA impacts IQ.
Look at ratings systems. If you give less than five stars (out of five), it's seen as a death sentence. The vast majority of ratings are either five or one -- people don't understand the concept of nuance, of degrees. It's all or nothing anymore.
I know mentioning The Bell Curve is supposed to be absolutely taboo. I've read it completely.
But, what I've never heard is the possibility that chapter 18 might be stating the truth.
Have any of our education policies ever taken into consideration that approximately half of our population has below average IQ? Some not ever intelligent enough to feed themselves in America, The Land of Opportunity!
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
—George Carlin
LeBron James has done more for school children through his donations than you clowns. The most successful basketball player of this era has given millions for after school programs. He encourages students to work hard and do well in class. I give this article a C-.
You don’t need to resort to name calling just because you disagree.
You are correct; I do not need to. Maybe I should have used their terminology. Let's replace "you clowns" with "your ilk".
Part of the answer may have been explicated by Alex Haley in The Autobiography of Malcolm X: "If someone is doing the task as you are and having more success, then look at what they do differently and adopt that methodology." [I'm paraphrasing. It's from the parable about hunting rabbits.]
Gents, you missed a big part of this boat. Too much. Ergo, I must opine.
Incidentally, I have been observing Scott Adams' Twitter somewhat closely since this brouhaha began. Evidently, Elon's algorithms insist that we see Adams' dumbest tweets as often as possible for the time being.
Bottom line, Scott is/was playing a silly, race-baiting game. NO one has been "performing" more than Adams over the last week or so. Why? Who knows? But one thing that is clear: He is NOT trying to open up a serious conversation about a serious or timely topic. Period. At best, he's (mostly) amusing himself and his followers.
I say this partly because only days after this so-called "bold and courageous stance on race", he was back-pedaling like a little you-know-what. It has been a PATHETIC spectacle lol
One day, he's like, "Black people are a hate group."
Next day he's like, "Omg, I've been cancelled by the libruhl media!"
Next day, "You know, Black conservatives have been good to me through all this."
Next day, "You know, it's the White progressives who are the problem!"
Next day, "I've been taken out of context, bro!"
The next day, people like me are trying to indulge his butt: "Okay then, Scott, what's the damn context??"
"It's in the original video! The libruhl media keeps misleading you!"
Okay, Scott! Then do us all a favor and repost "the proper context" so we can clear your good name? How about that?
"I'm still a victim! It hurts so bad! Cancel Culture! Omg!"
It's like, man, just shut up lol
Interestingly, he even started tellin' people to distrust Fox News. (I guess Tucker & Friends ain't "rightwing-woke" enough lol)
Trust me, between Elon, Newsmax and American Renaissance, Scott Adams ain't nowhere near "silenced".
At any rate, if we are going to call out the bs we see on the left--and yes, there is a TON--can we PLEASE not pretend like there isn't an AVALANCHE of snowflakey, hypocritical, thoughtless, emotionalist bs on the right--and on a regular basis. Because as much as I hate to report it, there is. And Scott Adams' victimhood is a prime example.
One other thing: John was WAY too nice when he pointed out how Adams avoided nuance in his "assessment" of that poll. It was more like "Yes. Adams left out a MEGATON of nuance"--and very basic truths, too.
Scott basically took 20% of the respondents to a poll and magically turned them into "half", and then made that false half a reason to "get away from ALL of 'em". Because "this"--whatever the hell "this" is--"can't be fixed" (whatever the hell that means lol).
Scott pretended like the question per se wasn't a weird one to begin with. He also pretended like the phrase, "It's okay to be White", wasn't in fact the spawn of 4chan trolls and self-avowed White nationalists. (Which it is, folks. That is a fact.)
Now he wants to back-pedal and play victim. No reason to respect this. The fact that Adams may have stumbled into a subject in dire need of serious exploration is not an indication of his good faith or anybody else's--AT ALL.
He's a 69-year-old adolescent, a joke, a provocateur, and sadly a sign of the times.
Nearly everyone on the left is a "__-old adolescent, a joke, a provocateur" and so that's why Adams doesn't bother me that much. Hopefully, he's learned from this incident.
The hypocritical reaction to Adams from the right is what bothers me far more than Adams himself. Unfortunately I could say that about a number of subjects.
It all comes down to IQ and you guys know that and normally are not afraid to speak about it. Until we all accept that fact and work out solutions with that in mind ..... we will never advance. This is not racist thinking .... it's saying it like it is!
Why are there differences in IQ? Based on Dr. Sowell's research, it's likely not due to any significant difference in innate capability. Rather, it's due to cultural differences throughout childhood.
Here are references that suggest differences are significantly impacted by genes also. Contrary to many hopes and some claims, the narrowing of the gap in social conditions between Blacks and Whites has not led to any change in the magnitude of the Black- White IQ difference in over 100 years. Massive society-wide interventions such as ending segregation, the subsequent nationwide program of school busing to achieve racial bal- ance, and the Head Start programs have failed to reduce this difference. Head Start programs did produce modest gains in school retention and graduation rates among Whites—but not Blacks [193]. Other large scale, often well-publicized, countywide amelioration projects have not reduced the Black-White achievement gap (despite desirably low stu- dent-teacher ratios and computers in every classroom) [8]. Adjusting for socioeconomic status, which itself contains much heritable variance, only reduces the Black-White IQ difference by about one-third [8].” https://openpsychologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V3/TOPSYJ-3-9/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdf
“The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background. “. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna/#start
“..in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. “ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X
I'm no expert on the topic, but I think it may be easier to show significant gene-driven differences between individual families than averaged across entire populations of this "race" versus that "race." Here are a few points to ponder, if you tend to think the primary differences between different populations are genetic.
In his book "Wealth, Poverty and Politics," Sowell notes that 'Mental tests given to American soldiers during the First World War ... showed that whites from some Southern states scored lower than blacks from some Northern states.'
"The research of professor James R. Flynn... has revealed that the number of questions answered correctly on IQ tests has risen very substantially in more than a dozen nations, in just one generation... The amount by which IQ test performance has improved for whole nations exceeds the IQ difference between blacks and whites in the United States..."
https://www.deseret.com/2007/10/4/20044896/thomas-sowell-don-t-let-hysterics-taint-the-debate-on-iq-heredity
"... the average IQ difference between black and white Americans -- 15 points -- was nothing unusual. Similar IQ differences could be found between various culturally isolated white communities and the general society, both in the United States and in Britain... Professor Flynn [was] able to discover that whole nations had, in effect, had their IQs rising over the decades by about 20 points... In the half century between 1945 and 1995, black Americans’ raw test scores rose by the equivalent of 16 IQ points."
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/10/race-and-iq/
Observations that point to the malleability of IQ independent of genetics:
(1) The first-born child has higher IQ than a later born child.
(2) The only child has a higher IQ than the average first-born child.
(3) Twins have lower IQ than singly-born children on average.
(4) In cases where twins were conceived but one child was stillborn, the surviving twin has, on average, an IQ non-distinguished from singly-born children.
https://www.afterecon.com/other/thomas-sowells-interesting-points-iq/
Nonsense. The genetic basis for IQ (its heritability in the parlance) is generally estimated at between 60% to 80% for late adolescents and young adults. Non-genetic factors (which is NOT to say social environment) account for the remainder. You really need to get into the various twin studies to tease out the (non-)effects of culture on IQ.
60-80% impact from genes is huge. I didn’t say it was 100%. I said the averages are highly positively correlated to the average amount of Neanderthal DNA in a given race.
Curious, I had not heard the connection with Neanderthal DNA. My only understanding of Neanderthal DNA is that it made them risk averse, and potentially the reason why they died out ( they did not want to move from happy hunting grounds, even as the ice rolled in.)
I was addressing ADStryker's comment that IQ lacks a significant innate (genetic) component and is largely determined by social environment (culture) during childhood.
I think it is really to do with the wealth or lack thereof of average Neanderthal DNA in each race’s genes (because it is very highly positively correlated).
"work out solutions with that in mind"
And what would that look like, Terry? I am genuinely curious.
I'm afraid I can't satisfy your curiosity .... I really wish that I could.
Why can't you, Terry? Is it because you aren't capable? Is it because you think I can't handle it? Is answering my question going to disrupt some master plan?
I doubt that any of the above is true.
And btw, I don't need a "satisfactory" answer. Just an answer. Anything resembling substance would work for me. Because seriously, I have observed "race realist" talk--they used to call it "racialist" in the late 90s--for 20-30 years at least. But I never hear their Part II. It's always about what "we" are currently avoiding and why. But never about what "we" would be doing if "we" acknowledged IQ.
I thought you might be in the mood to indulge me. If not, so be it.
Hi Charles, average IQ for races is highly positively correlated to amount Neanderthal DNA the races have. In order, it is highest in Asians, Indians, Whites, Blacks. Same order as average IQ scores highest to lowest. Look it up. So the reason Terry or anyone else may not have an easy fix is because it ovolved over hundreds of thousands of years and in very complex ways. Kind regards, no name calling please. I am sincerely giving you a viable path to research more.
The Neanderthal DNA to IQ correlation is just a correlation, correct? I will admit I have not done much reading on the topic. But if it is simply a correlation then it's a prime "correlation does not imply causation" candidate. Has there been any good research on that specific correlation? Not just identifying Neanderthal genes and their presence in certain groups, but linking specific genes to IQ.
Hi Steve, There has been a number of papers published on it. Naturally it’s a delicate subject. I suspect it is causation given it appears to occur across the earth consistently and for generations (starting when scores were kept). I had 3 references in other comments if you can find them. Take care.
A. I'm curious what made you say 'no name calling'. Did you anticipate me calling you a name? =) If so, why?
B. I wasn't asking for an easy fix to anything. Respectfully, it's like we're all talking past each other here.
I was asking Terry why he thinks he couldn't "satisfy my curiosity", when I'm not even sure he knows what I'm curious about.
C. With respect to your thoughts, I've heard about that stuff for literally decades. This is hardly new territory for me. I assume the data is fundamentally true. (What choice do I have? lol)
I also happen to think there are deeper and more interesting questions in this realm. But regardless, my question today is the same as it was decades ago: "So what?"
What are we as a society supposed to do differently? (i.e., now that we have this "new", decades-old information?)
My larger question is "Why are we racializing this stuff at all?" (Of course I think I know why SOME people are doing it, but whatever.)
Again, I'm not looking for an easy fix to anything. Not sure why you got that impression. I'm looking for an honest answer (even though I think I already know what it is).
A. I thought you came across as sarcastic in your replies to others.
B. Fair enough
C. I can’t field all the questions here and now but I’m some; having a scientifically sound insight on what causes groups to have higher or lower IQs allows us to invest scarce resources more optimally (as opposed to how horribly they are invested now). It could be abused of course; just like the metrics in place now are biased and corrupt.
In sum, I mis-judged you (sorry) and do hope people smarter than me (with a big Neanderthal DNA footprint or not) can find workable solutions to the systemic destruction of blacks by woke Dems.
To which "Indians" are you referring? The residents of India, the country, or Amerindians (Native Americans)? I was unaware either group is lodged between (East) Asians and (European) whites in terms of average IQ.
Indians in India. Apparently what happened is that the humanoids who migrated out of Africa interbred with Neanderthals as they moved through Europe, India and Asia. Those that stayed in Africa didn’t significantly interbreed with Neanderthals and thus have little to no Neanderthal DNA.
I would think acknowledging racial differences in cognitive ability (IQ for short) would be akin to acknowledging racial differences in athletic ability. Americans tend not to get their knickers in a twist over African American dominance in selected positions in American football and in all positions in basketball or East African dominance in marathon running. Rather, individual talent is carefully assessed and black athletes offered often lucrative contracts based on what their talent and personality can deliver to the sports team and its audience.
Regarding IQ specifically, we should expect to see, similarly to what we DO see in professional athletics, participation of racial groups in different proportions than their representation in the larger population. Those racial or ethnic groups with lower average IQs would tend to be underrepresented in fields, activities, and positions that demand high levels of cognitive ability. Other groups with average IQs higher than the norm can be expected to exhibit overrepresentation in those same areas.
Where things could get a bit sticky centers on whether lower average IQ impairs a given group's ability to appreciate and follow standards chosen by groups with higher average IQ. The question is whether individuals from low IQ groups can and should be expected to conform to social norms of all kinds or whether special accommodations can or should be extended to the group's members to lessen "social friction" associated with violation of those norms. Example areas where these differences might appear are impulse control in public situations, planning and performing to time commitments, and foregoing current pleasures in favor of future reward (time preference).
IN ANY CASE, individuals should be assessed and treated based on their individual character and behavior rather than markers of their various group identities. Hopefully, the above is more or less responsive to what you sought and failed to elicit in your previous exchange.
I appreciate your seriousness. But this doesn't answer my fundamental question, which, in fairness, I haven't made crystal clear in this thread.
"Why are we racializing this at all?" (That's question #1.)
If the real concern is how "we"--meaning "society", I guess?--treat (or should treat?) people with varying IQ's, why relegate this question to a concept as profoundly nebulous as "race"? We can slice and dice the human population six ways from Sunday. But why race?
We know why, if we're honest about it. Because there is a certain strain--frankly, on the right--that wants the world to acknowledge that Black people in particular are innately less capable intellectually. Why? So that people like them can act as they please--and encourage others to behave the way THEY want them to act--without the larger society viewing them as scum.
In other words, in some ways, they long for the days of old. They want to shape a world that guards White racial purity (another ridiculous concept).
They cover themselves by saying phrases like "on average", of course. But again, this is old stuff.
Of course, the minute I suggest that we also conduct studies on IQ differences that go beyond race, "strangely", they are not as enthusiastic. Sometimes they go silent.
I would LOVE to do a study on the IQ's of urban Northern White liberals versus rural Southern White Trump supporters. Purely in the name of science, of course. You can trust me, 100%. I would have zero political agenda there.
I won't speculate. I'll wait for the science. And let's not get our panties in a wad over the results. Whatever they are, we as a society will simply act accordingly.
Now, what would that mean? What would that look like? How should society behave once we concede that Group X is on average less intelligent than Group Y?
And THAT is my CENTRAL question--in both cases.
If the answer is to treat individuals as individuals, we didn't need to go through any of this.
I think you're a few videos behind the curve. The deracialization discussion was a couple weeks back as I recall. It didn't go well...
I don't think it has much to do with "mood".
What do you think it has to do with? I think I know, but you know how that goes.
So where is Barack Obama on all this? He has his foundation, ok. He is probably spending a lot of time puppeteering this sad administration. Why why why is there no comment from him now about cultural values — there used to be. He made a speech on Father’s Day years ago. Obama would be a powerful voice. Where is he?
I’m wondering if the schools doing this type of grading are run by people who were passed through schools that did the same type of grading for them? Is this the result of failing to educate? Therefore failing to provide the tools and solutions needed to solve the problem with education? Just wondering?
It is like kicking the can down the road; let someone else deal with difficult problems.
So yes Polly my point exactly is that the educational system in America needs reengineering and the the truth of the matter is that using the term reengineering is being kind. Yesterday’s meritocracy hinges upon whether not a truly reconciled system exists in the first place. Right now though it looks like the jury is still out. Thanks for your offering regarding because without dialogue when simply cannot reach the best possible solution. All the best. Oh and of course, we thank our professors.
"a truly reconciled system"?
Do tell.
Giving 50% for total failure just sets up the expectation that total failure is not total failure. Experiencing failing is part of one’s overall life experience and we shouldn’t be robbing children of it. Also, incentives are a powerful driver of human behavior. We have to be extremely careful with how we incentivize children. I think the superior approach if we are hoping to keep kids in school would be to remove one or two of the lower marks as components of total grade -- this does not abdicate the child from having to produce
Look at the cities; look at Philly and Baltimore as examples. Complete disasters with horrifying crime rates and 93% of kids not proficient in grade level math. Utter failures due to Woke Dem mayors and party. Democrats have optimized the destruction of Blacks by abortion, black on black crime, welfare and failed schools and teachers.
Where's the majority black city in America that is NOT a complete disaster? One run by Dems or Reps or Commies or the Gestapo or even some friendly aliens? Surely there's ONE somewhere in the entire country...I just can't put a name to it. Any help out there?
"A C on the transcript means he'll never get in the Yale Law School."
And? Maybe that kid is not Yale material. Not everyone is. Shuffling him through to appease the parents won't make him any more successful than giving the black no-show kid a 50. We are developing this habit of insisting that reality be reshaped into what we wish it was rather than what it is. The longer we make excuses for people - any people - the longer it will take for them to stand on their own. The longer that this grace period extends, they longer it takes for them to stop blaming race or some other outside factor for any negative outcome.
Young people will rise to, or fall to, your expectations. Henry Rogers, like any activist for any cause, is invested in perpetuating anything that allows him to claim that a problem is occurring. If black were kids were to start succeeding en masse on these tests, his schtick would be over. By the way, how did he manage to get by on those tests? How did all of other black "leaders" whose entire deck consists of the race card? The cultural argument is long overdue. That it's not happening speaks loudly about the goals of those "leaders." Like Rogers, they need a permanent underclass of black people whom they can claim to champion but never help, never challenge, never motivate.
Decades after I took the test, and all of the black kids who were later on my college campus took the test, we have managed to devolve in terms of expectations. We're still using 100 year old excuses, and the soft bigotry of low expectations has been institutionalized, now spreading to the C student of Glenn's nightmares. How many more generations must pass before we stop excusing lousy outcomes?
Agreeing with much of what you say, I nonetheless will offer a counterpoint:
Meritocracy is contingent on the accurate measurement of some sort of merit. Grades and standardized tests may be somewhat effective at this, but I also think that is increasingly dubious as they become more and more reflective of Ed school ideology and less reflective of the actual subject matter. Is it really the case that people with a C grade or who otherwise don't succeed academically are worse at the thing the test is supposed to be testing? Or are they perhaps simply not in alignment with the thinking of whoever wrote the test?
The "antiracist" version of this argument poses that minorities are excluded from opportunities due to the culturally constrained nature of the tests, which I think has to have at least some truth to it. But the argument doesn't have to be limited to that. How many of the world's great achievers in real life were also great achievers in school? The correlation is far less than proponents of systematized education would like us to believe.
Gravity is still gravity. The bell curve is still the bell curve. Reality still bites when it is ignored. Giving something unearned still injures the recipient.