This discussion makes perfect sense in the world we all thought we lived in until about 20 minutes ago, a world in which merit and individuals mattered. Unfortunately, the NYC mayor and his ilk seem to have a very different agenda, one that does not value excellence and personal responsibility, and could well lead us to a very dark place. Think Bolshevik Russia and 1930s Germany. I don't know if Glenn is interested in venturing off the "race beat" a bit, but if he is, I'd love to see him engage with some thinkers from other disciplines who have given considerable thought to the question of why this happening in the West now, for example, Jordan Abbot,Jordan Peterson, Michael Shellenberger, David Romps.
Glenn has been fairly courageous in his discussions around race, IQ and culture. He has almost come close to acknowledging there is a relation between race & IQ. I think Charles Murray and others have made some very interesting observations based on research over the past 30 years.
How is it that this group of people continuously scores above average, on average - for decades? While another group of people on average continuously score below average? Why is one group fairly peaceful while another so violent? I think these disparities clearly indicate there is a difference between the races... most notably in sports and athletics.
I believe in things like the marshmallow test and test scores taken around the world for the past 70 years. On average, we know Chinese are excellent at deferring their gratification at very, very young ages. Genetics or Culture? What about measuring testosterone? Why are Chinese crime rates so low? They are the least violent group in our society. Is that because of culture? Is it Tiger Mom's? Or is it genetics where millions of lab tests show Chinese have lower levels of testosterone africans have the highest? Is it outlandish to consider their success a result of their intelligence passed down via genetics and it's their intelligence that drives their culture?
There is a lot of grey area in the ways that humans develop. The answer to the culture/IQ question has a lot of grey as well. However, we know it is a mixture of both IQ and Culture. In order for true change to happen you have to 100% brutally honest about the problem.
We see in similar animal species that live in different regions develop different beaks that serve different purposes depending on the food available. We see different tail size, limb size, color, gestation periods in same species different locations. We know eastern Africans have developed different proportions in leg and torso size and a different angle in their pelvis which makes running long distances easier because they are more efficient resulting from thousands of years of hunting and gathering in the sub Saharan region. We know 100% there is human variation in the shape of the birth canal is significant between races.
We see and acknowledge the science of evolution in sooooo many areas, in so many creatures on so many levels - except in modern day humans. It's taboo to admit the races are different - except when it comes to sports.
In the scheme of things according to nature our differences are perfect and beautiful. Does bad exist in nature? Or is good/bad a social construct? Our differences, regardless of the labels and stigma we want to put on them should be honestly discussed and completely embraced. Who said IQ is better than athletic prowess?
There is a lot of grey because there are so many things that make us up as humans in this world today. Just like with Covid, you can't ignore the importance of natural immunity. We can't ignore IQ as a factor.
It seemed like Wai Wah Chin avoided answering too directly Glenn's question about how if one denied that there was anything wrong with the system then the only logical conclusion was that there was either something wrong culturally or genetically with the Black and Hispanic communities in NYC. Ms. Chin did talk about how we needed to start preparing kids early and that merely upending the system of meritocracy wasn't going to magically bestow skills upon kids who didn't otherwise possess them. And she also mentioned that some of the racial gaps have actually increased in recent years after having narrowed in prior years. Overall though, my impression was that she was slightly evasive on the specific question posed by Glenn of nature versus nurture.
My guess is that some non-trivial percentage of people who are in the anti-affirmative action camp ultimately harbor what might be described as a biological realist perspective, i.e. that some meaningful proportion of these ethnic gaps are ultimately biological in nature and not significantly amenable to environmental intervention. I won't go so far as to say that these people constitute the majority of those who defend meritocracy, but I'm almost certain it's a meaningful minority at the least. But as Glenn alluded to, this is often the unspoken subtext around these kinds of conversations, rarely if ever directly stated for fear of social or political suicide.
I guess my personal belief is that these tests are a fairly good measure of the intrinsic aptitude necessary for success at these elite high schools. I don't believe they're in large part biased and as others have pointed out many of the Asian students who do well on them come from relatively impoverished immigrant communities in NYC. Whether or not these kinds of ethnic gaps are in any way genetically determined is fundamentally irrelevant in my opinion. At the end of the day we should provide kids with the opportunity to showcase their talent and if they can do so on the admissions exam we should admit them to these high schools. Upending a system of meritocratic admissions isn't going to remedy any possible cultural or genetic deficits so what would be the point in doing so?
I guess maybe what I'm arguing for here is that this focus on nature versus nurture is ultimately a distraction. We should put our heads down, crank away, and let the chips fall where they may, the same that we do in athletics where for instance I've never heard anyone complain about racial imbalances among players in the NBA or the NFL and question whether these imbalances are the result of nature or nurture.
Neither "objective" entrance exams nor IQ tests come to us on stone tablets written by the Almighty. They are written by people whose communities they serve.
It is really annoying to hear "Asian" when your interlocutor [first time in my life I get to use this word out side of an exam setting] uses it to mean Han Chinese almost exclusively.
Initially, Ms Chin suggests that anyone even poor students can succeed on this test but later on she admits that success comes only from preparation and some sort of "pipeline." Compare the recent domination of spelling bees by Indian-Americans. Is it because of inordinate talent or because the Indian community has created a whole ecosystem to train their kids to excel at specifically this task?
Interesting conversation. I appreciated her direct manner. When she said we need to get over the idea that everyone is equal (around 29:00), I laughed and noticed Dr. Loury raised his eyebrows. It's clear what she means, and I don't really disagree, but imagining her saying those words to a cable news anchor is amusing.
I'm all in favor of smart, hard-working kids getting into the best schools, but I have to admit the obsession of people in NYC (and some other places) is foreign to me. Is it good to live your life like that? If you are a super smart kid, but not quite brilliant, say, is it best for you to scratch and claw and sacrifice so you can wind up among brilliant students who don't have to work as hard as you do? That's a recipe for misery. Who is being served, the kids or the parents?
Glenn posted a "Roland Fryer Primer" a few months back. Roland had incredible academic abilities, obviously, but what he loved and focused on in his school years were sports and socializing. Academically, he did only what he needed to get by. He also worked as a kid; he even faked his age to get one job. He went to college to pursue sports but wound up falling in love with economics and jettisoning sports. The rest is history, as they say. If you haven't seen the video, you really need to watch it. He tells the story way better than I have here, and you need to see how effervescent he is. What's the phrase, joie de vivre?
I support the test Wai Wah Chin discussed. And I admire the kids who work so hard on academics at such young ages. But that's not the only path to the top. I'm probably biased, having grown up in Texas like Roland, but his way seems much the better to me.
Bronx HS of Science has 8 Nobel winners, 7 in Physics and 1 in Chemistry. Science, Stuyvesant and Tech combined have 14 Nobelists. There's another HS in France that has 8 Nobelists.
I am interested in hearing the counter argument to Wai Wah. It's probably some anti merit bull crap.
keep in mind that the phenomenon of over/underrepresentation goes both ways, and people don't like the demographics of special needs schools either, which ends up harming the most vulnerable
This discussion makes perfect sense in the world we all thought we lived in until about 20 minutes ago, a world in which merit and individuals mattered. Unfortunately, the NYC mayor and his ilk seem to have a very different agenda, one that does not value excellence and personal responsibility, and could well lead us to a very dark place. Think Bolshevik Russia and 1930s Germany. I don't know if Glenn is interested in venturing off the "race beat" a bit, but if he is, I'd love to see him engage with some thinkers from other disciplines who have given considerable thought to the question of why this happening in the West now, for example, Jordan Abbot,Jordan Peterson, Michael Shellenberger, David Romps.
Glenn has been fairly courageous in his discussions around race, IQ and culture. He has almost come close to acknowledging there is a relation between race & IQ. I think Charles Murray and others have made some very interesting observations based on research over the past 30 years.
How is it that this group of people continuously scores above average, on average - for decades? While another group of people on average continuously score below average? Why is one group fairly peaceful while another so violent? I think these disparities clearly indicate there is a difference between the races... most notably in sports and athletics.
I believe in things like the marshmallow test and test scores taken around the world for the past 70 years. On average, we know Chinese are excellent at deferring their gratification at very, very young ages. Genetics or Culture? What about measuring testosterone? Why are Chinese crime rates so low? They are the least violent group in our society. Is that because of culture? Is it Tiger Mom's? Or is it genetics where millions of lab tests show Chinese have lower levels of testosterone africans have the highest? Is it outlandish to consider their success a result of their intelligence passed down via genetics and it's their intelligence that drives their culture?
There is a lot of grey area in the ways that humans develop. The answer to the culture/IQ question has a lot of grey as well. However, we know it is a mixture of both IQ and Culture. In order for true change to happen you have to 100% brutally honest about the problem.
We see in similar animal species that live in different regions develop different beaks that serve different purposes depending on the food available. We see different tail size, limb size, color, gestation periods in same species different locations. We know eastern Africans have developed different proportions in leg and torso size and a different angle in their pelvis which makes running long distances easier because they are more efficient resulting from thousands of years of hunting and gathering in the sub Saharan region. We know 100% there is human variation in the shape of the birth canal is significant between races.
We see and acknowledge the science of evolution in sooooo many areas, in so many creatures on so many levels - except in modern day humans. It's taboo to admit the races are different - except when it comes to sports.
In the scheme of things according to nature our differences are perfect and beautiful. Does bad exist in nature? Or is good/bad a social construct? Our differences, regardless of the labels and stigma we want to put on them should be honestly discussed and completely embraced. Who said IQ is better than athletic prowess?
There is a lot of grey because there are so many things that make us up as humans in this world today. Just like with Covid, you can't ignore the importance of natural immunity. We can't ignore IQ as a factor.
It seemed like Wai Wah Chin avoided answering too directly Glenn's question about how if one denied that there was anything wrong with the system then the only logical conclusion was that there was either something wrong culturally or genetically with the Black and Hispanic communities in NYC. Ms. Chin did talk about how we needed to start preparing kids early and that merely upending the system of meritocracy wasn't going to magically bestow skills upon kids who didn't otherwise possess them. And she also mentioned that some of the racial gaps have actually increased in recent years after having narrowed in prior years. Overall though, my impression was that she was slightly evasive on the specific question posed by Glenn of nature versus nurture.
My guess is that some non-trivial percentage of people who are in the anti-affirmative action camp ultimately harbor what might be described as a biological realist perspective, i.e. that some meaningful proportion of these ethnic gaps are ultimately biological in nature and not significantly amenable to environmental intervention. I won't go so far as to say that these people constitute the majority of those who defend meritocracy, but I'm almost certain it's a meaningful minority at the least. But as Glenn alluded to, this is often the unspoken subtext around these kinds of conversations, rarely if ever directly stated for fear of social or political suicide.
I guess my personal belief is that these tests are a fairly good measure of the intrinsic aptitude necessary for success at these elite high schools. I don't believe they're in large part biased and as others have pointed out many of the Asian students who do well on them come from relatively impoverished immigrant communities in NYC. Whether or not these kinds of ethnic gaps are in any way genetically determined is fundamentally irrelevant in my opinion. At the end of the day we should provide kids with the opportunity to showcase their talent and if they can do so on the admissions exam we should admit them to these high schools. Upending a system of meritocratic admissions isn't going to remedy any possible cultural or genetic deficits so what would be the point in doing so?
I guess maybe what I'm arguing for here is that this focus on nature versus nurture is ultimately a distraction. We should put our heads down, crank away, and let the chips fall where they may, the same that we do in athletics where for instance I've never heard anyone complain about racial imbalances among players in the NBA or the NFL and question whether these imbalances are the result of nature or nurture.
Neither "objective" entrance exams nor IQ tests come to us on stone tablets written by the Almighty. They are written by people whose communities they serve.
It is really annoying to hear "Asian" when your interlocutor [first time in my life I get to use this word out side of an exam setting] uses it to mean Han Chinese almost exclusively.
Initially, Ms Chin suggests that anyone even poor students can succeed on this test but later on she admits that success comes only from preparation and some sort of "pipeline." Compare the recent domination of spelling bees by Indian-Americans. Is it because of inordinate talent or because the Indian community has created a whole ecosystem to train their kids to excel at specifically this task?
Interesting conversation. I appreciated her direct manner. When she said we need to get over the idea that everyone is equal (around 29:00), I laughed and noticed Dr. Loury raised his eyebrows. It's clear what she means, and I don't really disagree, but imagining her saying those words to a cable news anchor is amusing.
I'm all in favor of smart, hard-working kids getting into the best schools, but I have to admit the obsession of people in NYC (and some other places) is foreign to me. Is it good to live your life like that? If you are a super smart kid, but not quite brilliant, say, is it best for you to scratch and claw and sacrifice so you can wind up among brilliant students who don't have to work as hard as you do? That's a recipe for misery. Who is being served, the kids or the parents?
Glenn posted a "Roland Fryer Primer" a few months back. Roland had incredible academic abilities, obviously, but what he loved and focused on in his school years were sports and socializing. Academically, he did only what he needed to get by. He also worked as a kid; he even faked his age to get one job. He went to college to pursue sports but wound up falling in love with economics and jettisoning sports. The rest is history, as they say. If you haven't seen the video, you really need to watch it. He tells the story way better than I have here, and you need to see how effervescent he is. What's the phrase, joie de vivre?
I support the test Wai Wah Chin discussed. And I admire the kids who work so hard on academics at such young ages. But that's not the only path to the top. I'm probably biased, having grown up in Texas like Roland, but his way seems much the better to me.
Bronx HS of Science has 8 Nobel winners, 7 in Physics and 1 in Chemistry. Science, Stuyvesant and Tech combined have 14 Nobelists. There's another HS in France that has 8 Nobelists.
I am interested in hearing the counter argument to Wai Wah. It's probably some anti merit bull crap.
An interesting discussion.
keep in mind that the phenomenon of over/underrepresentation goes both ways, and people don't like the demographics of special needs schools either, which ends up harming the most vulnerable