NYT: "James Watson still won't stop talking about race" (interview, ethics)

[golgi1]

Desertdetroiter's take on the issue would work out for everyone, if the issues of IQ and racial outcome comparisons were left alone by the greater Left.

In fact, absent what I state below, there wouldn't be a need to mention race differences in IQ.

The problem is that the Left is not content to make the IQ issue neutral and thus unnecessary to assert.

In a society wherein the issue was left alone (equality was not stated and differences were not stated), every individual would be judged on their individual merits and accomplishments. Groups would not be held accountable for the successes or the failures of any other group.

In this society, the Left likes to strongly imply that each (ever more broadly defined) group has equal genetically derived capacities and talents.

As is perfectly obvious to everyone in this society, the issue with implied equality of ability across all groups is that is that group disparities then imply systemic racism that is blamed on the White group.

What happens then is that the White group is politically attacked in a manner that causes them real political harm, are taxed to give more resources to the under-performing group, are pressured to change institutional standards (ie: an SAT requirement for Universities, etc), and are pressured to change long standing social rules (ie: tolerance for crime or other misbehavior of students, etc) in a manner that hurts their group. This is a short and limited sample of the ways in which the assertion of innate group equality hurts the White group. I could go on. This is why everyone should care:

The rational broader White (and all others who are interested) group response to this forced accountability is to defend with science, scientific critique, and data against the 'we are all equal' dogma that neither the NYT defends nor could they defend with science in the article.

The White group and other interested parties are forced to broadly assert their disagreement for the 'innate equality' argument, and their reasons for such that are rooted in measured unequal IQ Bell Curves (not to mention other stats) for different racial groups, because otherwise they are relentlessly attacked and continue to pay deeply impactful penalties for unequal group outcomes.

The systemic-racism shake-down makes the IQ debate necessary and actually works to increase racial hostility. Articles like this one read as ironic when outlets like the NYT play a significant part in censoring any real debate on the issue.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

I'm still working on understanding the problems... haven't even proposed a solution yet. Meanwhile lots of people are out there trying to mandate bad solutions, working from bad premises and bad information, never even coming close to understanding what they're trying to fix. Most of the Democratic Party falls into this camp. Affirmative action, diversity quotas, sensitivity training... every liberal politician has a solution they want more of. I don't see you bucking.

why are any of those things bad solutions ?

[Absolom]

Another angle to this is that it might not matter in the near future. The smartest people in tech are building an interconnecting system of artificial intelligence that will likely rule humanity. This is not far-fetched, it's happening now. It doesn't have to be "conscious," just algorithms.

Apologies for the Black Mirror-esque post.

[golgi1]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

why are any of those things bad solutions ?

Seriously? That's a basic question that is both a little bit off-topic here and has been discussed to death on the forum. I also told you in the post that directly precedes yours.

Again:

because most of those things constitute undue political rent, and most effectively tax / hobble the group that is not under-performing.

They are justified in response to unequal outcomes and based on false systemic-racism charges, derived from false "we are all perfectly equal in group ability" politically correct dogma that ignores and misrepresents science.

[cttransplant85]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

why are any of those things bad solutions ?

hiring quotas will put our private enterprise at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, lowering our collective standard of living. They should be hiring based on merit and merit only. And hiring quotas in public safety positions will put people, including other minorities in harms way. Affirmative action in college admissions is counter productive, the drop out rate among black students is in excess of 50%. Many are going to schools that they shouldn’t be in to begin with they can’t compete with the other students, often become disgruntled and lash out and disrupt the education of others(see Mizzou). They would be better off going to a community college or trade school that teaches at their pace. Also, schooling in general does very little to improve someone’s IQ. IQ is mainly hereditary.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by golgi1

Seriously? That's a very basic question that is both a little bit off-topic here as well as have been discussed to death here on the forum. I also told you in the post that directly precedes yours.

.

My post was quoting and in direct response to TDE, not you. So im not sure why you are saying "I told you" as if we had previously spoken.

Again:

because most of those things constitute undue political rent, and most effectively tax / hobble the group that is not under-performing.

They are justified based on false systemic-racism charges, derived from false "we are all perfectly equal in group ability" politically correct dogma that ignores and misrepresents science, in response to unequal outcomes

Segregation isnt a false systemic-racial charge. And the problems brought forth by it didnt stop the day it was made illegal.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

hiring quotas will put our private enterprise at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, lowering our collective standard of living. They should be hiring based on merit and merit only. And hiring quotas in public safety positions will put people, including other minorities in harms way. Affirmative action in college admissions is counter productive, the drop out rate among black students is in excess of 50%. Many are going to schools that they shouldn’t be in to begin with they can’t compete with the other students, often become disgruntled and lash out and disrupt the education of others(see Mizzou). They would be better off going to a community college or trade school that teaches at their pace. Also, schooling in general does very little to improve someone’s IQ. IQ is mainly hereditary.

There are multiple flaws in your argument.

1. A quota system does not argue for you to hire anyone, it argues to hire a qualified individual fitting a certain criteria , in this case, color.

2. Colleges like Mizzou have minimum admissions standards that all students must meet, black or white.


Your entire argument is based on a false narrative.

[ALackOfCreativity]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

why are any of those things bad solutions ?

They* constitute racial discrimination and are unethical in and of themselves?

Honestly we should be able to argue for the dismantlement of those things by purely arguing that they are ethically impermissible, and it's a moral failing of our society that this isn't adequate to shut them down. That being the unfortunate case, the importance of pushing back on the rejection of research into the cause of disparate outcomes goes beyond the protection of intellectual honesty and research, which would also be important things even without this.

*quotas and affirmative action. Sensitivity training can actually be worthwhile in the rare case that it is done well and is usually just a minor waste of time, not a big deal.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity

They* constitute racial discrimination and are unethical in and of themselves?

Honestly we should be able to argue for the dismantlement of those things by purely arguing that they are ethically impermissible, and it's a moral failing of our society that this isn't adequate to shut them down. That being the unfortunate case, the importance of pushing back on the rejection of research into the cause of disparate outcomes goes beyond the protection of intellectual honesty and research, which would also be important things even without this.

*quotas and affirmative action. Sensitivity training can actually be worthwhile in the rare case that it is done well and is usually just a minor waste of time, not a big deal.

As I said in my other post. The reason those things were created didnt disappear.

[golgi1]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

My post was quoting and in direct response to TDE, not you. So im not sure why you are saying "I told you" as if we had previously spoken.

Because this is a group discussion and my post came before yours.

Segregation isnt a false systemic-racial charge. And the problems brought forth by it didnt stop the day it was made illegal.

Segregation doesn't begin to explain the differences in outcomes.

Beyond your politically correct emotional reaction, you can't even prove that segregation wasn't better for Blacks than so called integration that wholly relies on forced racial rent to make anything happen ("anything" almost occurring entirely in the workplace only).

Many Blacks with strong political opinions seek a type of re-segregation or Black Nationalism. Blacks strongly dislike when Whites move toward them in an effort labeled 'gentrification'. Are they all wrong or are you wrong?

Were Blacks worse off now or during Jim Crowe as a large group, using crime and other data? How about on the street level? How has your broader culture fared since the end of Jim Crowe? Has it gotten better or worse?

These outcome differences are realized in Europe and Africa as well. They are realized for Blacks who came here well after segregation. The White man is not magic and your proximity to or integration with him does not confer magic prosperity.

The mere implication that integration with Whites is the solution to Black prosperity implies unequal innate ability. You will quickly arrive at that contradicting logic, which has real political implications, when pursuing this argument.

Relying on excuses for outcome differences, in a manner that breeds continuous rent seeking (affirmative action, etc) that is essentially rooted in the 'group equal-innate-ability' rationale, will continue to motivate the IQ discussion at hand. That is inescapable. See my prior post.

You can have your racial group entitlements and this IQ discussion as a strong national conversational subtext, or you can have neither.

Given the enthusiasm in which political rent is embraced by the Black group, in reality you don't have a choice in the matter. However, I would sincerely offer that it isn't the wise choice because you are essentially risking the house for some temporary racial privileges.