Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always wanted to be provost at Princeton, but never made it. I think that the search committee was a bunch of anti-WASP racists and bigots -- it couldn't possibly be true that I was not smart enough to make it . . . Right?
I always wanted to be an Admiral. What do you mean that I don't have the ability or the leadership skills? You must be a fascist . . .
I want an assembly line job at Western Electric. What do you mean I have to show up for work every day at 8:00? -- you must want to eliminate me from the planet because you're a pig . . .
And on it goes
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 07-22-2014 at 03:06 PM..
Scientific racism is always used to naturalize the current social order. If blacks are mostly slaves, it must be because they are biologically and intellectually unfit for free, independent labor. If blacks are placed in separate schools, denied the right to vote, and deprived of fair and equal access to the job market under Jim Crow, it must be because they are biologically and intellectually unfit for citizenship. If a large number of blacks fail to succeed in second rate public schools, overcome decades of redlining and economic exploitation, and earn decent wages, it must be because they are biologically and intellectually unfit for life under free-market capitalism. Slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, poverty -- none of these things have anything to do with racism according to the race "scientists"; no, these are all products of innate black inferiority. It is the same ahistorical narrative over and over again, century after century. Nothing new.
Scientific racism is always used to naturalize the current social order. If blacks are mostly slaves, it must be because they are biologically and intellectually unfit for free, independent labor. If blacks are placed in separate schools, denied the right to vote, and deprived of fair and equal access to the job market under Jim Crow, it must be because they are biologically and intellectually unfit for citizenship. If a large number of blacks fail to succeed in second rate public schools, overcome decades of redlining and economic exploitation, and earn decent wages, it must be because they are biologically and intellectually unfit for life under free-market capitalism. Slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, poverty -- none of these things have anything to do with racism according to the race "scientists"; no, these are all products of innate black inferiority. It is the same ahistorical narrative over and over again, century after century. Nothing new.
Are things not going well for you? What would your suggestion be to improve the current social order, and why should anyone take your suggestion? Never before have so many people lived so well as they do in today's United States. Our bottom decile live better than much of the world . . .
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 07-22-2014 at 03:07 PM..
Are things not going well for you? What would your suggestion be to improve the current social order, and why should anyone take your suggestion? Never before have so many people lived so well as they do in today's United States. Our bottom decile live better than much of the world . . .
I don't see what any of this has to do with the clear, unmistakable pedigree of the ideas about race you espouse.
I don't see what any of this has to do with the clear, unmistakable pedigree of the ideas about race you espouse.
So you have no ideas about how to improve the social order that you complain about so stridently and with such unction? Do you just want to pull the temple down on the rest of us? Or is it not the responsibiity of the morally superior critic such as yourself to cast any pearls before the swine who disagree with you?
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 07-22-2014 at 03:53 PM..
So you have no ideas about how to improve the social order that you complain about so stridently?
I did not "complain about" the social order "stridently" or in any other way. That is another one of your red-herrings. The issue is how people have rationalized an unequal social order in this country for three hundred years. Racial science, plain and simple. These views were not scientific two hundred years ago and they aren't scientific now. They have always reflected an agenda. Always. You know this, but you refuse to accept it. I'm not sure why that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes
Do you just want to pull the temple down on the rest of us? Or is it not the responsibiity of the morally superior critic to cast any pearls before the swine who disagree with you?
I have zero interest in the morality of the issues being discussed here. Like I said, I'm not a liberal (Republican or Democrat). I don't think people who disagree with me are "swine" because, unlike you, I don't view intellectual, political, and social debates as personal disputes. You seem to think "racist" is the worst possible epithet in the world even when it is only applied to a particular viewpoint and not necessarily a person. I find it strange that you cannot see the problem with insisting on the primacy of race while simultaneously denying the existence of racism, both in the past and in the present. How is it not racist to insist that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites? What is the point of framing discussions about intelligence in this way? Why does it matter? You refuse to answer these and other relevant questions. Instead you try to make this about my tone, my qualifications, my moral superiority, all of which are irrelevant.
You have asked numerous times "why does it matter?" To answer the question, return to the original post in this thread. The investigators hold that white racism and privilege are the root cause of black poverty in Baltimore. This assertion is incompetent unless factors such as IQ differences and family backgrounds are controlled in the analysis. Perhaps this has been done, perhaps not, but if so it is not mentioned in the synopsis we have seen.
So "it matters" because the study is invalid and perhaps even dishonest if there are differences in IQ and these differences have not been factored out. In other words, and for example, if one group has a mean IQ of 80 and the other has a mean IQ of 100, then the assertion is invalid that differences in income are caused by white privilege and racism. Such differences in this scenario are far more likely to be caused by differences in intelligence. On the other hand, if both groups have a mean IQ of 100, or if the analysis has competently factored-out the variation caused by differences in IQ, then the assertion of white privilege and racism are plausible. This means, necessarily, that we need to understand IQ and race, and control the study appropriately, in order to understand what's going on.
As to why it's important in general, think of two schools of thought: (1) urban problems are caused by white privilege and racism, and (2) urban problems are caused by the lack of cognitive ability remaining in cities such as Baltimore. Note that these are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.
Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is conclusive and overwhelming that there are substantial statistical differences in IQ between the races. You may not like this, and I in fact don't like it, but it's simply a fact. Ignoring this fact precludes any useful approaches to improving the lot of the urban underclass and results only in wasteful, ineffectual policy.
A good example would be President Obama's notion (and I indeed voted for him, twice, by the way) that everyone should go to college. But someone with an IQ of 75, as well might be typical of a Baltimore ghetto black, is not going to profit from attending any legitimate institution of higher learning. When someone with a low IQ finds a school that will accept him and graduate him four years later, or perhaps more likely eight years later, that person can't hold a job commensurate with his self-image as a "college graduate," and his life is the worse.
So no, only people with an adequate level of intelligence should go to college. If this results in fewer blacks attending college per capita than whites, however, charges of racism abound. But these charges are invalid if there are racial differences in intelligence, as all evidence strongly suggests -- that's why "it matters" to investigate and discuss these questions. Along similar lines, affirmative action, for example, is race-based; therefore, we need to understand exactly what's going on at the foundation. That's why "it matters."
All this notwithstanding, the thought police -- and I would certainly put you in that category -- do everything in their power using thinly veiled hate speech such as you direct at me in order to try to squelch any discussion of the question of race and intelligence.
Precisely. The science of race (or scientific racism, whatever you want to call it) is mostly a product of the Enlightenment. It has been used to justify chattel slavery, the holocaust, and numerous other atrocities. Let's say it is true that there is some direct relationship between "race" and "intelligence" (assuming we can actually define these terms clearly). Why would this information matter? What good is it to know this? Why the correlation between race and intelligence as opposed to all the other possible factors? The answers are obvious: because it helps to justify forms of social control and allows the state to deal with people as members of groups rather than as individuals. The question can only matter in a society obsessed with race and steeped in racism. It's that simple.
Just because you don't like the results doesn't make it any less scientific. By questioning it's legitimacy you have conceded the results are legit. Also the studies are legit because we spend billions of dollars trying to close the gap. If we recognize that only a few Blacks are capable of performing at high levels (something WEB DuBois said a century ago) we could better allocate resources. We could track Black kids who don't do well academically into more suitable roles instead of frustrating them by pushing school to the point they dropout, turn to crime etc.
You have asked numerous times "why does it matter?" To answer the question, return to the original post in this thread. The investigators hold that white racism and privilege are the root cause of black poverty in Baltimore.
The authors of the study say no such thing, at least not in the article posted at the start of this thread. Let's return to the quote that led you to raise the issue of IQ:
Quote:
“We see a very clear pattern of white privilege that probably extends back a few generations to Baltimore’s boom times [in the ’40s to ’50s],” Alexander says. “I personally think there’s a lot of racism in the mix, but we can’t quantify that.”
First of all, the term "white privilege" here refers to preferential treatment given to whites in the job market in Baltimore during the postwar boom, which is part of the historical record. The question of IQ is irrelevant here, since the existence of dual labor and housing markets -- both formal and informal discrimination against blacks -- during this time period has been well-established by countless historians. That is what Alexander is referring to when he says "a clear pattern of white privilege that extends back a few generations." The last sentence is a personal observation from one of the authors in the study. He acknowledges that it is not a scientific observation. He does not claim that either of these factors -- "white privilege" and "racism" -- are "the root cause of black poverty in Baltimore." He suspects there is "racism in the mix" not that it is the root cause.
Quote:
So "it matters" because the study is invalid and perhaps even dishonest if there are differences in IQ and these differences have not been factored out. In other words, and for example, if one group has a mean IQ of 80 and the other has a mean IQ of 100, then the assertion is invalid that differences in income are caused by white privilege and racism. Such differences in this scenario are far more likely to be caused by differences in intelligence.
First of all, you have not established that the study says that "differences in income are caused by white privilege and racism." You haven't even read the study. You are merely harping on an off-the-cuff remark made by one of the authors of the study in an interview. Cause is extremely difficult (some would say impossible) to establish when it comes to issues like this and the social sciences in general. That is why there is so much debate surrounding them. You, and all the other IQ evangelists simply ignore this very basic fact. Your belief that something as nebulous as IQ determines class, social mobility, and myriad other complex issues like the ones addressed in the study is both mind-bogglingly reductive and wholly unfounded. Before you go trotting out more Charles Murray remember that the key words here are cause and determine.
Quote:
This means, necessarily, that we need to understand IQ and race, and control the study appropriately, in order to understand what's going on.
But you and the social scientists you admire do not understand either one. Intelligence is not quantifiable. Race is an unscientific concept. You cannot provide a precise, scientifically sound definition of either term. That is why actual scientists, for the most part, are not interested in this question. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. That should end the discussion right there, but on you go on your hobby-horse.
Quote:
As to why it's important in general, think of two schools of thought: (1) urban problems are caused by white privilege and racism, and (2) urban problems are caused by the lack of cognitive ability remaining in cities such as Baltimore. Note that these are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.
Are you kidding? This is a parody of social science and that's saying a lot because most social science is a joke to begin with. For one thing, no serious, respected social or political scientist views urban problems in these simplistic, reductive, and sloppy terms. The only people who subscribe to the single cause theory are those in the IQ camp. For the vast majority of folks in the other camp, it is probably safe to say that they believe advantages accrued through historical "white privilege and racism," along with some ongoing forms of racially-inflected economic exploitation (here's one example) simply influence or exacerbate what you call "urban problems." Indeed "urban problems" are only racial to people who see race behind every oreo cookie.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is conclusive and overwhelming that there are substantial statistical differences in IQ between the races. You may not like this, and I in fact don't like it, but it's simply a fact. Ignoring this fact precludes any useful approaches to improving the lot of the urban underclass and results only in wasteful, ineffectual policy.
Well, we've already established that you don't know what intelligence and race are, no matter how much you sputter and fume about "empirical evidence" and political correctness, so I won't address that again here. Your last sentence proves what I've been saying all along: you believe that IQ should determine social policy. In other words, the question of race and intelligence interests you insofar as it justifies certain forms of social control.
Quote:
A good example would be President Obama's notion (and I indeed voted for him, twice, by the way) that everyone should go to college. But someone with an IQ of 75, as well might be typical of a Baltimore ghetto black, is not going to profit from attending any legitimate institution of higher learning. When someone with a low IQ finds a school that will accept him and graduate him four years later, or perhaps more likely eight years later, that person can't hold a job commensurate with his self-image as a "college graduate," and his life is the worse.
First of all, Obama never said "that everyone should go to college." Since you voted for him twice maybe you should have the decency to know what he actually stands for. That's certainly what an intelligent voter would do.
Furthermore, there is no federal, state, or grassroots push for universal college education. This is a figment of your imagination. You've simply made it up. You want to dredge up a bunch of pseudo-scientific research to prove the futility of a proposal that is not even on the table. This is what is known as a straw man.
As for your claim that "someone with an IQ of 75...is not going to profit from attending any legitimate institution of higher learning"--- this illustrates perfectly the danger of your pseudo-scientific views and why people like you have absolutely no business making policy decisions. First of all, IQ does not measure every form of intelligence. No so-called "intelligence" test can because intelligence is such an imprecise and broad concept. Erroll Garner, for example, was considered intellectually deficient in grade school. Today he is remembered as one of the most important pianists America has ever produced. Perhaps if he had gone to Julliard he would have been the Artur Rubinstein of his generation. The point is that there are many ways to define intelligence, many things that one can study in college, and hence many things that one can gain from college. There is no definitive, surefire way to know in advance what any single individual will gain from such an experience. IQ tests cannot predict this. But, of course, you are interested in statistics, not individuals.
Quote:
So no, only people with an adequate level of intelligence should go to college. If this results in fewer blacks attending college per capita than whites, however, charges of racism abound.
No they don't. Virtually no one researching this issue contends that fewer blacks attend college simply because of racism. Another straw man.
Quote:
But these charges are invalid if there are racial differences in intelligence, as all evidence strongly suggests -- that's why "it matters" to investigate and discuss these questions. Along similar lines, affirmative action, for example, is race-based; therefore, we need to understand exactly what's going on at the foundation. That's why "it matters."
In other words, if fewer blacks attend college it is not because their ancestors endured 246 years of slavery and forced illiteracy, 100 years of separate and unequal schools, and decades of redlining but because blacks are simply generally less intelligent than white people as demonstrated by IQ tests. Voila! History means nothing and IQ is everything! Works like magic. Hence, blacks who do not attend college are exactly where they belong in the social pecking order and there is nothing society can do to change that. Social policies that attempt to improve some blacks' access to higher education (along with women and other minorities) are a waste of time and money. Right? Everyone is supposed to overlook all the muddled, unscientific definitions of intelligence and race, the sordid history of IQ testing and eugenics, the myriad refutations of the so-called evidence by highly lauded thinkers, and all the other possible, more plausible explanations and simply submit to the same logic used to justify slavery and segregation.
Like I said, you believe that racial science explains and justifies existing social hierarchies. That is why the question matters. If a racial caste system had not already segregated people into different races and assigned them roles based on this you would never bother to ask this question, which has no genuine scientific value. The question therefore stems not from an interest in black social welfare but from an investment in white supremacy. Anyone looking for racial disparities between blacks and whites will find them, no matter what. You will find them because you want to find them, because you believe black people and white people are real, discrete categories. You will defend them because you want them to be true, no matter how inexact the science and the terminology.
Quote:
All this notwithstanding, the thought police -- and I would certainly put you in that category -- do everything in their power using thinly veiled hate speech such as you direct at me in order to try to squelch any discussion of the question of race and intelligence.
You want to circumscribe people's lives based on something as vague and imprecise as IQ and you're calling me the thought police? That is rich, pal. You are the one who advocates using IQ as a form of social control. Not me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
