The Inequality Taboo by Charles Murray

commentary ^ | September 2005 | Charles Murray

[The Red Zone]

Well you aren't too bright to freep

[Map Kernow]

Thank you...after 114 posts I finally get answer to a simple question.

You haven't been posting 114 times to this thread---did anyone ever tell you what a juvenile attitude you have?

Now this will be my last post since I'm not really all that interested in the topic of IQ relative to other things.

Very evident that you're not interested in learning about the topic---also very evident that you're more than willing to waste people's time with tendentious, uninformed views on it anyway and peremptory ignorant questions.

I'm not even going to ask if there exists research on comparing an individual's score on different tests of supposed experts who've bloviated for 114 posts since I don't want to wait another 114 posts for a response.

I don't want to break your little heart but there is plenty of such research. You're just going to have to be a good little boy and go find it yourself. You're not the only person here who's felt frustrated and abused as a result of exchanges with you on the topic of intelligence and intelligence testing.

[Map Kernow]

When the lefties sneer at conservatives for ignoring the scientific method and supporting creationism, it's fair to point out that lefties cast the scientific method aside in dismissing the heritability of, and racial and sex differences in intelligence.

Put another way, they want to pretend that evolution and genetics apply to all but the human species.

[Aracelis]

Well you aren't too bright to freep

You do have a point. Perhaps then my IQ is on the -20 points side. ;)

[white trash redneck]

More specific than that - they want to pretend that evolution and genetics don't apply to human intelligence. After all, even the flakiest left-wing moonbats can't deny the heritability of human morphologic characteristics - i.e. Junior looks like Dad (or the milkman).

[Map Kernow]

After all, even the flakiest left-wing moonbats can't deny the heritability of human morphologic characteristics - i.e. Junior looks like Dad (or the milkman).

...And is dumb as a box of rocks just like his Dad. ;)

[NormalGuy]

In the 60's almost half the people were below average. Almost half the people were above average.

Two generations later half are still divided on opposite sides of the average.

Congress must spare no expense until everyone is above average.

[Map Kernow]

Congress must spare no expense until everyone is above average.

These results have already been achieved in Lake Woebegone, Minnesota.

[Map Kernow]

More specific than that - they want to pretend that evolution and genetics don't apply to human intelligence.

Seriously, if it weren't for the black-white IQ testing gap, I wonder just how controversial the whole subject of intelligence and intelligence testing would be...

[white trash redneck]

if it weren't for the black-white IQ testing gap

Hey, let's not forget that Larry Summers got himself into trouble with the PC Gestapo for raising the possibility of sex-based differences in mathematical ability.

[Map Kernow]

I'm not even going to ask if there exists research on comparing an individual's score on different tests of supposed experts who've bloviated for 114 posts

I think I mentioned before that the most rigorous concept of "intelligence" or mental ability that has emerged in psychology is that of "g." It is correlated with IQ but not necessarily synonymous with it. "g" by definition cannot be extracted from a single test, the way atmospheric pressure can be determined with a single reading of a properly calibrated instrument. Although I've mentioned several times some published works by Jensen on this topic, here is a link to a reproduction of a 1998 Scientific American article by Prof. Linda Gottfredson entitled "The General Intelligence Factor," which discusses generally the statistical extraction of "g," its biological correlates, and other related topics. I think it is an excellent article by a recognized authority on the subject, and I invite you to read it---it won't take you long. I welcome any insights or criticisms you may have.

[Map Kernow]

Hey, let's not forget that Larry Summers got himself into trouble with the PC Gestapo for raising the possibility of sex-based differences in mathematical ability.

And with Richard Lynn and Paul Irwing's very recent paper claiming that men on average have IQs five points higher than women on average, making them better suited for "tasks of high complexity," the subject isn't likely to go away or become less controversial for that matter.

[Tolik]

In case you missed it! A very long and very interesting article for your weekend reading.

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[George Smiley]

He's slyly alluding to a George Orwell quote.

[redgolum]

My problem with the whole concept of IQ is what is purporting to measure. As a measurement device it's unlike any accepted metrology. It has no accepted standard and it's unclear what the precision or accuracy of a particular test is.

Great point.

[rmlew]

Strangely enough, everyone that I know who has read the book thinks it's about race.
No, it is about how genetic variations correlated among specific groups predict social and economic outcomes.

A lower IQ reduces job prospects and social advancement. It also correlates with criminal behavior and even lower impulse control. In so far as lower IQ and impulse control seem to be found among certain populations, their drift into the underclass is seen as all but axiomatic.
Ironically, some social conservatives I know have looked at the data and have suggested that these biological and social differences necessitate welfare and a paternalistic religious society so as to prevent racial and class struggle.

[rmlew]

Garbanzo may as well try to suggest that intelligence is a social construct.
(Actually it is a biological construct with clear and universial social implications.) The only social construct is how we value certain aptitudes.