Race and IQ: A High School Science Fair Project Ignites a Storm

American Thinker ^ | 02/14/2018 | Selwyn Duke

[SeekAndFind]

We don’t know the student’s name, but we do know that he hit a nerve — in fact, he hit a whole bunch of them. Identified only as a boy of Asian descent at C.K. McClatchy High School in California, the teen’s recent science-fair project, “Race and IQ,” propounded the thesis that differences in groups’ average intelligence influence their academic performance. He couldn’t win, though, because his project was removed after parents, staff and other students became “upset” and one girl said she felt “unsafe and uneasy.” The irony?

A project on evolution would no doubt have been well received — even though an assumption of racial differences is implicit in evolutionary theory.

In fact, The Sacramento Bee, which hasn’t yet evolved out of the progressive primordial soup, mentioned that the student’s thesis is associated with eugenics (which the Bee casts negatively), the science of improving the human race via selective breeding. The paper is likely unaware, however, that the term “eugenics” itself was coined by Sir Francis Galton — a cousin of famed evolutionist Charles Darwin — and that Galton made clear that in his eugenicist endeavors, he was merely building on his cousin’s work.

Philosopher G.K. Chesterton once noted that if people “were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.” This is easy to understand: What are the chances that different groups could have “evolved” isolated from one another for eons — subject to different environments, stresses, procreation-influencing cultural imperatives and adaptive realities — and ended up identical in every worldly measure? Why, even if the peoples evolved isolated in identical environments, the separation alone would make the prospects of winding up completely “equal” a virtual statistical impossibility.

Whatever you believe about evolution, it’s clear that equality is not a thing of this world.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Human biodiversity is human biodiversity.

Some groups are, on average, more intelligent than others. Just as some groups are, on average, faster at sprinting (West Africans), faster at long distance running (East Africans, Atlas Mountain inhabitants), stronger in raw upper body strength (Whites and Polynesians), or more dexterous (East Asians), etc.

These things remain true, regardless of much idiots like yourself burble on about “racism” or whatever else.

You’re free to have your own opinions, no matter how unscientific and ostrich-like they may be. But pretending that it’s all because of “mean ol’ racists,” rather than a concern for sound public policy that would take into account biological realities makes you appear to be extremely ignorant of basic realities.

[BuffaloJack]

> Due to the internet, the IQ genie is out of the bottle.

Be aware that they changed the way IQ was calculated so that it is more politically correct.

[GOPJ]

Another solution to the 'gifted programs problem' put forth a few years ago was to racially 'norm' IQ test.... add a bunch of idiot questions based on inner city slang etc.

White liberal elites - people who depend on the 'grievance vote' - came up with the idea.

That said, 'smart' people in our culture are being outwitted We are losing.I'm not interested in debating the ethics of this situation while sitting in a 're-education camp' waiting for the train to arrive.

[VanDeKoik]

” Some groups are, on average, more intelligent than others”

That’s adorable. A racial collectivist that I’m sure decries any other form of collectivist thinking like the left peddles.

Groups don’t have intelligence, genius. Individuals do.

Well you can go around in life thinking like a Democrat in this regards, but I’m an American, so you will have to excuse me if I don’t agree with this nonsense because you really want to feel superior to people without having to earn it. I see people as themselves, and leave it to them to prove their worth.

“You’re free to have your own opinions, no matter how unscientific and ostrich-like they may be.”

Boy, sounds like what I’m told when I say AGW is nonsense.

Yet another thing you have in common with those nut cases.

[Boogieman]

Remember, the full title of Darwin's opus was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

[Boogieman]

“That’s adorable. A racial collectivist...”

You’re talking nonsense. Noting a fact does not equate to advocating some policy based on the fact.

For example, if I note that there is a disparity in income distribution, it doesn’t make me a communist. Only if I were to advocate a policy of forcibly redistributing income based on that fact would I then be a communist.

[Yashcheritsiy]

That’s adorable. A racial collectivist that I’m sure decries any other form of collectivist thinking like the left peddles.

Groups don’t have intelligence, genius. Individuals do.

Groups have average intelligences which are derived from the intelligences of all of their individual members. If you're too dumb to understand basic statistics, then you should probably not have commented on this thread to begin with.

Well you can go around in life thinking like a Democrat in this regards, but I’m an American, so you will have to excuse me if I don’t agree with this nonsense because you really want to feel superior to people without having to earn it. I see people as themselves, and leave it to them to prove their worth.

It's hard to adequately express just how stupid your comment here really is.

Politics have zero impact on biological realities. Democrat, Republican, Liberturdian, that has absolutely zero relevancy to anything having to do with this discussion. The fact that you seem to think it does suggests that you, for whatever reason, think that you can somehow bend physical realities to your own personal preferences and opinions.

I guarantee you, you cannot.

Group average IQ is real. It is between 70-90% heritable. It isn't going away just because you want to blubber on about whatever "ism" your tiny little mind is forced to view the world through.

Boy, sounds like what I’m told when I say AGW is nonsense.

Yet another thing you have in common with those nut cases.

Except that we actually have decades worth of consistent, well-documented data that demonstrate the reality of group average IQ, as well as obvious circumstantial data that all convergently point to the same reality about IQ.

Try again, simply drawing a non sequitur parallel with AGW isn't going to make you seem any less dumb than you already do.

[VanDeKoik]

You thinking that a group has “an average IQ”, and based on the numerous comments in the multiple times this story has been posted, it isn’t hard to tell that a group of you on this site just attributes some base-level (usually low) intelligence to people (collectivist thinking) based on a “study” where you average some other people’s test scores, get a number, and slaps it on everyone that shares little more than a similar skin tone, and then engage in some circle-jerk about how you’ve discovered and speak “brave truths”, with a bunch of snide swipes at blacks tossed in, because it isn’t a “racist thing....just “science”. Give me a break!

You guys get off on bashing blacks, I get it! And this gives you some “cover” to collectively call them “stupid”, or what’s the PC way of saying it, “on-average their IQ is 85” or some variation on that theme.

[DungeonMaster]

This one is a doozy!

[Yashcheritsiy]

For example, if I note that there is a disparity in income distribution, it doesn’t make me a communist. Only if I were to advocate a policy of forcibly redistributing income based on that fact would I then be a communist.

I think deep down inside he knows this. Pointing out facts is not the same thing as advocating a public policy or social system (of any sort).

But attributing malicious intent to those who say uncomfortable things has always been the resort of the one who refuses to accept realities which he wishes weren't realities.

[VanDeKoik]

“Groups have average intelligences which are derived from the intelligences of all of their individual members. If you’re too dumb to understand basic statistics, then you should probably not have commented on this thread to begin with.”

Oh? So did you test all of those “members”?

No? You didn’t? You just take what you can get and slap it on people whom have no ability to prove their individual intelligence?

“you’re too dumb to understand basic statistics”

Yeah just like when I tell the left they are misusing statistics to supposedly prove their “hard settled science” that the Earth is burning to a crisp? Is that the same? or is your method better than theirs because you kind of like the conclusion that you get, despite it being as bad as theirs?

“Politics have zero impact on biological realities. Democrat, Republican, Liberturdian, that has absolutely zero relevancy to anything having to do with this discussion.”

Oh I’m sure it’s not, just all of the people that seem hell-bent on selling the idea that black are “dumb” and “my science says so”, are really just “unconcerned spectators....just trying to do science”, right? Go ahead and tell me that lie again. I’ve seen plenty of fringe blogs and obvious racist loons obsess over this like it was mana from heaven, but all of the actual scientists seem to keep saying “this isnt remotely conclusive, and we have really only started researching this” like what was written in the “Bell Curve” book that is the Bible to the people that make a career online on this.

“Group average IQ is real”

Group average income is real too. So if you live on a block with poor people on welfare, and you have a full-time job, does that mean that you are actually poor (because averages) because the next street over is full of people 100% employed with high salaries? Can I judge you base on that collective and say, “There’s Yashcheritsiy. On average, he’s poor” (without your input, because individualism is obviously un-American), or do you think you should be judge on individual merit? I get into the same type of debate when leftists bash red states because they point to graduation rates and incomes like in Mississippi and COLLECTIVELY judge the people there to be dumb and poor.

Take you time. Remember, “Group average income is real”. You dont want to go against statistics now.

Like I said, I dont do collectivism. You may like it because you get to point to blacks and say how stupid they are, and think you have a veneer of “science” to give you cover, but people know what you are doing.

[VanDeKoik]

“But attributing malicious intent to those who say uncomfortable things has always been the resort of the one who refuses to accept realities which he wishes weren’t realities. “

Same thing the AGW people say as well.

At some point you guys will see that you arent any different than they are. You just like your agenda, just like they like theirs, which they dont see as having “malicious intent” either and that we “climate deniers” “refuses to accept realities which he wishes weren’t realities”.

But you are different....of course. /s

[Boogieman]

"You thinking that a group has “an average IQ”..."

Well, it is common practice to quantify the average attributes of a group, that is the nature of statistics. If you have a problem with the science of statistics, I guess you had better take it up with the statisticians, and I don't know that very many of them are posters on FR.

"...and based on the numerous comments in the multiple times this story has been posted, it isn’t hard to tell that a group of you on this site just attributes some base-level (usually low) intelligence to people (collectivist thinking) based on a “study” where you average some other people’s test scores, get a number, and slaps it on everyone that shares little more than a similar skin tone, and then engage in some circle-jerk about how you’ve discovered and speak “brave truths”, with a bunch of snide swipes at blacks tossed in, because it isn’t a “racist thing....just “science”. Give me a break!"

Seems like right here you are attributing motivations collectively to a bunch of posters on FR, based on a whole lot less evidence than the people you are railing against. That's a bit hypocritical, isn't it? Also, I don't appreciate being lumped in as "you" with this group, since I haven't posted this story, or done any of the things you seem to be angry about, I simply noted that you were being nonsensical in your criticism. If you want to rail against people accusing you of nonsense, then by all means feel free to include me as "you" in that group.

[Boogieman]

“But attributing malicious intent to those who say uncomfortable things has always been the resort of the one who refuses to accept realities which he wishes weren’t realities.”

Yes, this is the heart of political correctness. They do not want anyone to say certain things because those things might be detrimental to the policies THEY want to advocate. It matters not what policies the people saying the forbidden things actually advocate, because political correctness is by nature a defensive position.

[Boogieman]

You’re actually more similar to that crowd, since both of you are engaging in poltical correctness in order to suppress discussion of things that you do not want spoken of.

The AGW crowd tries to suppress speech by labeling people “deniers”, and you try to suppress speech by labeling people “racist”.

[newgeezer]

This one is a doozy!

Indeed.

As time marches on, for more and more of us, emotions trump facts. Even if knowledge of some "uncomfortable" facts could lead to improved lives for millions of people, they refuse to hear it.

And for this, too, I believe much of the blame falls squarely on Amendment XIX and the chickification of our culture.

I'd love to see some kids try testing THAT at their science fairs...

[VanDeKoik]

"Well, it is common practice to quantify the average attributes of a group, that is the nature of statistics. "

It isn't common to then slap any person that fits little more than a skin color with that

Can I take a math class with ten kids, 7 that have poor math scores, 3 that have good ones, average that out, and then tie that to the 3 that have good scores, to hell with their individual scores? Can I then transfer that average to any group of kids that take this same math class in the future in that particular room? Can I then take that average for that one class and then attribute that to people that physically share certain attributes to the kids in that original class?

Yes I can based on what you guys keep saying. And if you say I'm wrong I will just say: "If you have a problem with the science of statistics, I guess you had better take it up with the statisticians". You can play dumb all you want, but you know that people pushing this aren't some "huzzah science" geeks.

If you guys (that believe in this) want to take the individual test scores of the people tested, and say "the average score of the group tested is X", then fine. They took a test, their performance is their performance.

Where you guys abuse the hell out of this is when you then extrapolate out to assume that everyone of Y group will fall in Z range....despite them not having the luxury of proving their own performance, and then running with a narrative that you know is bulls*it as a complete picture and horrible unfair to individuals. In essence:



This man, sight unseen, is less intelligent than...



Because statistics told you so.

[redcatcherb412]

Never knew they made front-butt pants, egad !

[VanDeKoik]

You’re actually more similar to that crowd, since both of you are engaging in poltical correctness in order to suppress discussion of things that you do not want spoken of.”

Nope.

Don’t believe in their nonsense, because they take incomplete science and twist it to fit ideology and politics, just like this.

Saying that you should not rob people of their ability to not be prejudged based on something they had no part in, and that they should have the ability to prove their merit based on their own abilities and work, is “poltical correctness”, then the definition of PC must have changed.

“The AGW crowd tries to suppress speech by labeling people “deniers”, and you try to suppress speech by labeling people “racist”.”

Uh, no. They call people deniers. These guys almost seem to want to, but they stop at “you just don’t believe in science”. Frankly a distinction without a difference.

[VanDeKoik]

It almost requires a trigger warning. :^/