Friday, October 26, 2007

Mainstream sense on IQ

The article below from "The Times" of London gets it pretty right. One point they glide over, however, is that "culture fair" tests (one not dependant on a particular educational or social background) show very similar racial and class gaps to other tests -- and have been doing so for decades. In Australia there was even a test specifically designed for blacks in a black environment (the Queensland Test) and whites still scored way higher on that. Pesky!

Rows about race and IQ pop up about once a decade, and invariably cause a fuss. But do they really signify anything? The evidence is that IQ, as conventionally measured, does differ between racial groups. Many studies have shown differences of about 15 points between the mean scores of white and black groups, and some have shown that Chinese and Japanese groups score higher still.

The counter-argument is that the conventional measurement of IQ is heavily culture-dependent. A test developed originally to measure the intelligence of Caucasians may not be fair to those whose cultural heritage is different. Some tests do contain biases that may disadvantage people, either on the basis of culture or, indeed, socio-economic status. When the scores are corrected for wealth and social position, the gaps narrow.

A second argument - that IQ doesn't matter anyway -is easier to dismiss. A large body of evidence shows that IQ is linked to success in life, both educational and economic. This is why the gap narrows when corrections are made for socio-economic status, because in a mobile society success is largely determined by intelligence.

To some, it is enough to say that IQ tests are unfair, and that their conclusions must be disregarded, but that flies in the face of the evidence that such tests are in fact good predictors of success. So if we accept that group differences are real, do they matter? The first thing to say is that such group differences tell us nothing about individuals. The distribution curves for all groups overlap, and the range of scores within each group is far wider than the differences between them. So even if the group differences were to be real, they tell us nothing about individuals within those groups. To judge individuals by the nation, race, or sex to which they belong is prejudice. Everyone has the right to be judged on his or her own merits.

The difficulty is that campaigners for racial equality have insisted on the rights of whole groups, not of individuals. They have sought to be argue that entitlements should be conferred on individuals not on their own merits but simply because they belong to that group.... Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve, a book published in the 1990s that reviewed the evidence dispassionately, said that the only answer was "an energetic and uncompromising recommitment to individualism".

All people deserve equal treatment. But that is not quite the same as saying they are all equal. The error comes in taking a group difference, which may or may not be real, and using it to judge the worth of individuals. That is racism.




The short memory of the Leftist media: "After the Clintons and their siblings were caught in the 42nd president's last-minute pardon scandal, Jimmy Carter called them "disgraceful." Robert Reich opined that "Clinton is utterly disgraced." Al Hunt called Clinton the "albatross" of his party who should "drop dead." Al Gore's campaign manager, Donna Brazile wrote in the New York Times that "It's time to let Bill Clinton go -- go on and live the rest of his life and allow a new generation of Democratic leaders to renew their fight on behalf of working families in America." New York Times columnist Bob Herbert affirmed that "Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing. It's time for the Democratic Party to wise up. Ostracism would be a good first step. Bill Clinton should be cut completely loose....some of Mr. Clinton's closest associates and supporters are acknowledging what his enemies have argued for years -- the man is so thoroughly corrupt it is frightening."

Private funding for retirement: "Instead of politically correct solutions to Social Security the Republican Presidential hopefuls might consider what President Bush campaigned on (but has yet to deliver) in 2000: A Private Retirement Account System. And if they don't want to look to Chile for a successful example of a privatized SS system, they can turn to Romanian President Traian Basescu who is steering his country in that very direction. Under the new Romanian system millions of workers will be transferred into a private pension system where they are able to choose between 14 competing pension funds. Romania is the latest country to join 31 other countries that have recognized the need to change over to private systems or go bankrupt. In the US, we don't seem to be moving in the direction of a Private Retirement System...nor are we even discussing the possibilities. That is probably because of the terrible results other countries have had with these types of systems. Take Chile for example where the private retirement system has been embraced by well over 90% of the population; where the annual return on investments has been 10% above inflation since the programs inception in 1981; and where a new sector of the economy has grown to compete for personal retirement accounts. That sounds awful to me". [/sarcasm]

More Leftist wisdom: "Dennis Ross is perhaps the least successful diplomat in American history. And his lack of success isn't down to bad luck. Ross concluded that Yasser Arafat was a legitimate peace partner for Israel, and embarked on the fool's errand of trying to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians on that basis. Has any American diplomat ever misjudged an important matter so thoroughly? Ross now brings his analytical powers and judgment to bear on Iraq. He accuses President Bush, who has brought about both regime change and the rise of a constitutional government that's just about holding together, of engaging in "stagecraft" to the exclusion of "statecraft." In the process, Ross has produced a column in which almost everything he says makes no sense."

Belgian police let Muslims run riot: "Last Sunday, demonstrating Turkish youths ransacked an Armenian restaurant in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node borough. According to the owner the police was present at the scene but did not interfere while his establishment was being demolished. The Armenian had to flee for his life. Another man who had to run for his life was the Belgian journalist Mehmet Koksal, an ethnic Turk. He was attacked around 11 pm on Sunday evening by a group of some twenty Turkish youths in front of the American embassy in Brussels, a few yards from the Belgian parliament building. The Parliament and the US Embassy are less than one kilometer from Sint-Joost-ten-Node. Koksal fled to a nearby police car, but a female police officer refused to let him into the car, whereupon the youths savagely beat him up. Fearing that they were about to lynch him, the police officers changed their attitude and allowed the journalist to seek refuge in their car...."


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".


No comments: