/sci/ - Science & Math

The fact that there are differences in average IQ scores between members of different groups does not undercut the case against group discrimination. But it does undercut the case for racial quotas and preferences and for the “disparate impact” legal doctrine which amounts to the same thing. Those cases depend on the assumption that in a fair society we would find the same racial mix in every school, every occupation and every neighborhood. Ordinary people know that isn’t true, but the elites who cherish “affirmative action” want people to believe it is. This is why there was such a furiously negative reaction to Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” which patiently explained that intelligence is partly the result of genetics.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/michael-barone-in-defense-of-jason-richwine-and-charles-murray/article/2529856

The fact that there are differences in average IQ scores between members of different groups does not undercut the case against group discrimination. But it does undercut the case for racial quotas and preferences and for the “disparate impact” legal doctrine which amounts to the same thing. Those cases depend on the assumption that in a fair society we would find the same racial mix in every school, every occupation and every neighborhood. Ordinary people know that isn’t true, but the elites who cherish “affirmative action” want people to believe it is. This is why there was such a furiously negative reaction to Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” which patiently explained that intelligence is partly the result of genetics.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/michael-barone-in-defense-of-jason-richwine-and-charles-murray/article/2529856

>>5113182
>articles which back up your preconceived notion
Actually I was raised to have faith that all races are equal and observable Negro inferiority was caused by discrimination.

It was only under the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that I lost my faith based belief in egalitarianism.

>>4778685
IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background.

>>4778034
IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background.

>>3778984
Sounds like an effort in futility, to me.

>>3550858
IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background.

>>2509367
1. IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental.

IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background.

2. It has proved impossible to construct a test to measure any of Thurstone's Primary Mental Abilities (or any other first- order cognitive factors) that does not also measure g. That is to say, scores on "factor pure" tests (i.e., tests designed to measure some factor other than g) always measure g in addition to whatever primary ability factor they were specially devised to measure. The g variance in tests of primary mental abilities is, moreover, generally greater than the variance attributable to the primaries. It has proved possible, however, to devise tests that measure g and little or nothing else.

From a philosophical perspective, the entire problem with this issue is that the burden of proof has been misplaced. It is not up to the "racists" to show that humans are neurologically diverse. It is up to the libfags to show that they are neurologically identical.

Of course they have seldom even started to try, and when they have they tend to fail. Typically, the Gould-Rose-Lewontin crowd's approach is to postulate a theoretical mechanism by which the observed facts could be explained without reference to human biodiversity, and demand that their opponents disprove this mechanism. Once you know the game, however, there is no reason to play it. Everyone from Rushton and Jensen to Shockley and Watson has been put in the position of a 15th-century atheist, from whom the faithful demand proof that God does not exist.

The doctrine of human neurological uniformity is the Russell's teapot of our time, and as its hierophants engage in more and more stereotypical theocratic behavior the parallel grows harder and harder to conceal.

The belief in racial equality is a purely religious one. It is founded not upon reason, logic, nor evidence.

The only reason people have faith in human equality is because it is the most emotionally appealing for them. The thought that some people are just inherently dangerous, stupid, and there is no helping these people is scary and saddening to them.

It's no different from people believing in an afterlife due to an inability to cope with the reality of death.

I was sent from /new/, to bring up the value of IQ tests.

>Because differences in material resources across a broad range of family circumstances seem to have no demonstrable effect on IQ by late adolescence, culture-only theories have now begun to stress psychological rather than material disadvantage as the root cause of group differences in cognitive performance: for example, racism-depressed motivation, racial stress, race-based performance anxiety ("stereotype threat"), and low self-esteem. All are generally posited to result in some manner from White racism. However, there is no evidence that any of them causes either short- or long-term declines in actual cognitive ability, either within or between races; not all of them (e.g., self-esteem) are lower for Blacks; and none can begin to explain the large array of relevant non-psychological facts, including why the races also differ in brain size and speed (in milliseconds) of performing exceedingly simple cognitive tasks such as recognizing which of several buttons on a console has been illuminated (a reaction time task). Because the American Black-White IQ gap has not narrowed in the century since it was first measured, the psychic injury must also be just as deleterious now as it was during that earlier, more hostile era for Blacks, which seems implausible. Thus, while the proposed psychic insults may temporarily patch over some rips in the culture-only theory, they would seem to hold even less promise than the failed socioeconomic ones for explaining the longstanding, worldwide pattern of racial IQ differences and their links to the biological correlates of g.