Posted on 04/06/2018 7:01:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.”
Reich was responding to anticipated resistance to his forthcoming book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. The “well-meaning people” Reich references are those who argue that race is a “social construct,” that there are no significant genetic differences among people of different racial ancestry. Maybe there are differences in appearance and other physical traits, these people say, but there definitely aren’t any in intelligence.
Such people responded with rage and fury to the publication in 1994 of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s book, The Bell Curve. That book, solidly based on the then-available psychological research, explored differences among races in intelligence as measured by rigorous IQ tests.
Herrnstein and Murray’s conclusion was that those differences are the result of both nature and nurture—genes and environment—in as yet unknown proportions. They predicted that research like Reich’s would provide a clearer understanding of just how much is genetic.
Reich obviously wishes to avoid the demonization endured by Murray, who was shouted down at Middlebury College just last year. Reich is at pains to say that his findings should not be used to justify racist practices, such as the slave trade, the eugenics movement, and the Holocaust.
He also makes a point that is obvious to the ordinary person but that he—and some of his critics who wrote to the Times—thinks needs reiteration, which is, as one reader put it, “differences in individuals vary far more widely than populations.” When we are comparing traits of people with different genetic ancestry, we are looking at averages, such as the differences between American whites’ and Asians’ IQ scores. (Asians’, on average, are higher.) But within the white and Asian populations, there is wide variety—which can be represented as a bell curve.
The assumption of “well-meaning people” is that ordinary Americans aren’t capable of grasping this. My view is that they understand it very well. They have learned—from school, from work, from everyday life, from public events—that there is a wider variation within each measured group than there is among measured groups.
To take a concrete and accurate example, they suspect that even if blacks might on average score lower than whites on average in intelligence tests, it does not change the fact that former president Barack Obama is a highly intelligent person. Indeed, you can read reams of anti-Obama commentary and look in vain for claims that he was not smart enough to be president.
In arguing that racial differences do not justify racial discrimination, Reich steps out on some possibly dangerous turf. “Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound,” he writes, though some Times readers would volubly disagree. Yet, “we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.” A fortiori, we should do the same for those with different racial ancestry, whose average differences are far less profound.
It’s a strong argument. Contrary to the fears of “well-meaning people,” the difference in average racial IQ scores does not undermine the case against racial discrimination. Ordinary Americans can and do see that racial discrimination against individuals is irrational and that the advances in knowledge about genetics by Reich do not make it any less so.
But the continuing existence of racial gaps, even as the IQ scores of all groups rise (that’s the Flynn effect, identified and named by Herrnstein and Murray), does undercut the case for racial quotas and preferences and the “disparate impact” legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court 47 years ago.
The justification for quotas is the assumption that in a fair society, we would find the same racial mix in every school, every occupation, and every neighborhood. Any significant deviation from statistical equality, in this view, can be evidence of persistent racial discrimination.
This notion suffuses the behavior of leaders in colleges and universities, in large corporations, in government at all levels. Many such leaders regard enforcing quotas as a moral duty, even if they place people in positions for which they’re unprepared. For these “well-meaning people,” David Reich has a (probably unintentional) warning: Science is undermining the rationale for the work you’re doing.
Identify the public policy changes that you are seeking.
Elizabeth Warren will be unhappy to learn that she is a lower-caste Cherokee.
The evisceration of the concept of civilization is what paved the way for civilized countries to be invaded by hordes of homicidal savages in recent years.
Please post link to any articles in that regard.
Interesting idea, but who would marshal them to actually apply themselves in such a manner? They have difficulty in many of these countries to bring very basic sanitation and healthcare reforms; not sure that truancy officers is high on the long list of priorities?
The scientist who is the subject of this article is suggesting that there are solid genetic reasons for poor performance in some groups while understanding that individuals can still excel within those groups.
One matter which came to mind when reviewing the list of high achieving Asian nations is that those countries for the most part are largely closed nations which are most unwelcoming to naturalization by poor and unskilled immigrants. Japan naturalizes 10-20,000 per year. The US naturalization number has been near 1,000,000 per year for the past 20+ years. The US melting pot accepts all kinds but the majority of those East Asian countries prefer a native born parent to be involved in any application.
At least we will be able to see it happen in Europe and South Africa in advance. May serve as a 'wake up call' for us.
All life forms are born, mature, age and die. This includes individuals, families, clans, classes, societies, empires and civilizations. But from the ashes a new phoenix always returns, to start the cycle anew.
When this occurs, which attributes do you think are manifest throughout these continual cycles? To whom do the spoils of victory consistently accrue? Aristocrats are better people than peasants. In fact, that's what the name actually means. The myth of the deserving, noble poor is just that as well - a myth.
Logically, it's easy to de-construct. The victors were/are physically superior. But, they couldn't be meatheads and/or dumb jocks; a certain level of cunning was/is necessary. After victory was achieved, who do you think they took as their reward? The hot village 9/10s or the dogs? In fact, why are so many people able to claim some kind of aristocratic ancestor? It's because for every legitimate child, they were fathering and equal or greater number on the side with their mistress(es).
However, with all this being said, these attributes are all genetically caused. That means they can be isolated, then duplicated, then applied. Gene therapy will be one of the greatest medical achievements of mankind. And to what standards of beauty and intelligence will most aspire?
That's why the potential next great battlefield will be the conflict over whether the "lucky sperm" elites will allow their secret sauce to be duplicated on a mass basis. Consider all advantages rendered mute, with Muzzies at 115 - and by logical extension, discarding said primitive beliefs - with no one left to serve as a slave or serf. Enter robots; but that's a different thread ...
They don't have to compete with them. They only have to murder them.
“Are WE capable of judging all people as individuals?”
Of course we are capable, and we pretty much do, but if the “Bell Curve” is right, that will result in exactly the racial realities (problems) we see today.
If you have two groups of people whose AVERAGE IQ is significantly different AND whose members can be easily identified as belonging to one group or the other, those two groups are not going to be able to peacefully coexist together.
The reason has to do with the fact that humans have a strong affinity with their own groups or tribes.
Imagine these two groups living together and there being absolutely no prejudice and everyone being judged strictly on their individual capabilities and merits. Under this scenario which group would end up with the most menial jobs? Which group would have the most students do poorly at school?
And how would the people of the group doing poorly react to seeing their “brothers” occupy the bottom rungs of the ladder? Especially if they’re constantly told there are no differences between the two groups.
Aren’t the answers to those questions exactly what we see in the world today?
https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X
“Throughout his career, Thomas Sowell has been fearless in confronting uncomfortable facts about human nature and ill-conceived public policies. His new book, Discrimination and Disparities, is the latest in a long line of works that calmly but persuasively shatter myths and ideological beliefs about race, ethnicity, economics, history, and culture.” - - New York Journal of Books
First of all, Mr. Obama is only half Black. So that alone makes this a pretty dopey example. Second, I'm not sure how bright he is. He is fairly reserved and very controlled when in the public eye, so I think that he at least knows how to carry himself so that he is perceived to be intelligent. Whether that reflects reality is an unanswered question. But the author is correct that nobody is claiming that Obama was, as a result of being half-Black, unintelligent.
As a side note - One of the great hypocrisies of the Left
If you believe in Darwin, in evolution of the species, that man is simply another animal that evolved from primates, then by definition, you must accept the differences of the races.
For in the biological world, we know that all animals are different, and have different skills, advantages and defects. Of course that must apply to humans also.
No response from Leftists and secular humanists.
The question is - why did the Indian caste system evolve? And it wasn't only in India either. And it has existed for thousands of years. Its a provocative question because facts and history will often conflict with ideology.
I’m not sure you can create a high IQ via hard work
Israel is lower cause they tested all Israelis not just ashkanazim Jews
Israel is only 72 perecent Jewish
And only 20 percent of them are the brainy Teutonic Hebrew
Sabra and Mizrahi Jews test about like cracker goyim like me
Consider the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study .
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ test scores of 130 black or interracial children adopted by advantaged white families. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of environmental and genetic factors to the poor performance of black children on IQ tests as compared to white children. The initial study was published in 1976[1] by Sandra Scarr and Richard A. Weinberg. A follow-up study was published in 1992[2] by Richard Weinberg, Sandra Scarr and Irwin D. Waldman.Raised from babyhood in affluent, white suburban families, raised by parents with above-average IQs, going to affluent suburban schools, associating with mostly white suburban peers, the adopted black children had their IQs tested at 17.
The IQs of the kids with two black biological parents averaged 89.
Full spectrum surveillance, comm capture/analytics, retina scans, AI body/face recognition, bio ID, the list of control mechanisms the Euros are/have implemented goes on.
I'm not sure what the point of denying reality is; what's your angle? Dissatisfaction? Envy? Resentment? I've always thought one of the core hallmarks of being ostensibly conservative is the ability to rationally deal with facts. Blind, obstinate denial is an attribute of emotional proglibs.
Intellect isn't a function of hard word and discipline.
I believe you are conflating the words intelligent and smart.
Good point.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand why the areas around Rajasthan & Delhi were/are the traditional seats of power during the British Raj, continuing since India became an independent country.
The whole notion of debating class/race/caste is laughable to traditional cultures like the Indians and Chinese (Mandarins). I mean, they consider it absurd on its face. Only in the US, where it's become a valuable political football, are these ideas entertained.
As you imply, they are cynically exploited by those on the left who know damn well. But, who is so foolish as to give up an important weapon? Only a dunce and a fool, neither of which describes proglib leadership. They need these serfs, the more the merrier, as their bulwark of power.
So, you are saying, no matter how hard working and diligent the people from Haiti become, they won’t ever overcome their limitations?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.