Classical Values :: Getting touchy-feely with the third rail?

January 11, 2007

Getting touchy-feely with the third rail?

The best way to deal with so called "third rail" issues is to focus not on the emotions but on the facts. Yet as a debate between M. Simon and others in the comments to this post shows, certain facts constitute a "third rail":

m. simon - Do you remember the shit storm that was raised by The Bell Curve book? Even if what you say is true as a scientific matter, it is effectively a third rail (touch it and you die) in terms of what passes for "main stream" credibility today (understanding that the "main stream" of media outlets and other institutions is well to the left of popular opinion - witness the popular support for the prohibition of affirmative action in Michigan which was opposed by virtually all "main stream" institutions and bien pensant writers). KC has achieved some fairly sympathetic coverage in the press and has become a meaningful voice in this process. The surest way for him to destroy that influence would be to take on the structure of affirmative action in America. KC is clearly a brave guy and is not afraid to take on the powerful in a just cause, but you have to pick your battles.

Go figure. Either statistics show that IQ test scores are statistically lower for some groups than others or they don't.

Gee. Statistics show some people are taller than other people too. (I think I'm several inches too short, and I'd also like 20 more IQ points to make up for my excesses over the years....)

And I was expecting maybe a big electrical ZAP!

This IQ business sure as hell isn't my third rail. I just touched it, and I feel nothing.

Perhaps the debate should be over why there's a third rail.

Who supplies the power to this third rail?

Any way to turn it off?

Or am I being too logical?

(What annoys me about these third rails is that they stifle debate and encourage dishonesty.)

MORE: I mentioned height because it struck me as a benign non-controversial topic. Now that I see that arguing over the late James Brown's height can get you shot, perhaps I should think again.

I guess there's some truth to the saying that size matters?

(In a man's world, anyway....)

MORE: The shooting is being called "the James Brown height fight," and I'm a little disappointed by the way the pertinent fact is being avoided:

Brown, who was known to wear lifts, died of heart failure Dec. 25 at age 73. Accounts of his height vary.

Accounts vary?

Are there no facts?

AND MORE: According to IMDB, James Brown was 5'6".

So when does the shooting start?

==================

Let me add a little something to Eric's fine post. Here is a fragment of a comment I posted at the above link that I think bears repeating:

The "studies" groups have politicized innate differences.

As Eric points out: it is equivalent to giving preferential treatment to short people. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Eric is a friend. And, I want it to stay that way. /tounge firmly planted in cheek (except for the Eric is a friend part).

Simon

posted by Eric on 01.11.07 at 09:38 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4408

Comments

Far be it from me to side with the PC crowd, but there is a reason why linking IQ to race is a third rail: it's really easy to misread the data, and even easier to be misunderstood, either by cultural Neanderthals or the equally insipid PC police.

First, consider the difference in between-group and within-group variation: there is a lot more difference, an effective order of magnitude, between the extremes of a given race and the average of any two races. The between-groups difference between Americans of African descent and those of European descent is not even a standard deviation, as I recall, or perhaps just one. Yet there are geniuses and the profoundly handicapped of all stripes, a difference more than 6 SD.

Second, culture and nurture play such a huge role in developing IQ that separating the effects of prenatal care, upbringing, and living from the purely genetic is very hard. Looking at ethnic groups worldwide, we find the same between-groups variation in people of the same ethicity in different social strata on separate continents. That is, Koreans in Japan, the U.S., and Korea show marked difference in IQ as groups, though each group is normal about a different mean.

And here's the thing: cultural minorities generally score lower on IQ tests. Who knows why.

Socrates · January 11, 2007 11:56 AM

Socrates,

You mean cultural minorities like Asians and Askenazi Jews who are one SD higher? It is certain that both groups faced discrimination because of race or culture. Why do they score higher if discrimination is the cause?

The problem is that if you are looking for high IQ folks to balance races at elite schools they are going to be rare by an order of magnitude relative to whites and several orders of magnitude relative to Asians and Askenazi Jews. Ever hear of the "gentelmen's agreement" to limit the numbers of Jews at elite schools? Sounds like discrimination to me.

So what was done to make the "minority" numbers proportional to population? Invent "studies" curiculum where there are basically no standards except the ability to craft PC jargon. With extra points for skin color, and sex (or gender if you want to get all PC). Thus you get the numbers of the "proper race" up in the faculty and you have a place to park people matriculated for the numbers game so they can stay in school for a while at least. Unfortunately, the "sudies" provide no generally marketable skill.

Women have an IQ mean about 2.5 points lower than men (as adults) and the standard deviation is lower too. For blacks the mean is around 15 points lower.

What I propose is that we treat people as individuals. If not I want more white people on sports teams. They are definitely under represented there. Yet there is silence on the subject from the PC crowd.

M. Simon · January 11, 2007 12:40 PM

Why do they score higher if discrimination is the cause?

Like I should know? Everybody outscores me. :-)

But I agree with your main point, which is that society, or at least government, should be colorblind. The concept of 'race' itself is to me a canard, no two individuals being alike.

There is a certain way of looking at the world that leads to grouping people into classes and races. It helps organize them, which is a prerequisite to both "helping" them and to controlling them. As often as not, the former is cover for the latter.

Socrates · January 11, 2007 12:51 PM

Actually we do know why. Genetics.

Africans have IQs of about 70 (on average). If they marry whites (IQ of 100 on average) their children have an IQ of 85 (on average).

Just what you would expect if genetics was the cause.

The averages say nothing about how to treat individuals. I propose something truly novel: treat people according to their actual qualifications. Tall peole should be over represented on basket ball teams. Smart people should be over represented in nuclear physics. Fast heavy people should be over represented on football teams. Short people should be over represented as B-17 ball turret gunners (tall people won't fit). People with singing talent should be overrepresented in the music business. People with the right kind of hands and musical ability should be over represented in the ranks of pianists.

Get it? People should tend to go where their talents and inate abilities can be used to the best advantage. IQ isn't every thing.

M. Simon · January 11, 2007 12:58 PM