editorial about teachers unions

[Monkeyleg]

I don't suppose it's possible to tone down the attacks a bit before threadlock, is it?

[Hutch]

At the risk of stepping I to this crossfire, can I opine that even tho' certain characteristics such athleticism or intelligence might on average vary by race or ethnicity, that ethnicity or race is a very poor predictor of athleticism or intelligence in any particular individual?

General observation:  Asians are smarter than Caucasians, on average.  Incorrect derivation:  I see before me Asian; he's probably smart.

[roo_ster]

So are you or are you not saying that intelligence is largely determined by genetic factors, and that certain racial groups are therefore generally less intelligent? Is that or is that not your argument? Actual answers instead of vague BS accusations please.

1. Of the several factors that effect intelligence, genetics/heredity has the most effect.

2. Mean general intelligence scores (g) vary by racial groups.

Those two statements are uncontroversial among those who do the research and read the literature.  makattack has linked to several examples. 

You wanna know how they stack up?  Get off your duff and read the literature. 

Here are some more hatefacts for you to rail against:
http://takimag.com/article/10_hatefacts_for_those_who_hate_facts_gavin_mcinnes/print

I first encountered the word “hatefact” while drinking with someone—either “shock jock” Anthony Cumia at a grimy Midtown bar or VDARE’s erudite Peter Brimelow at the incurably snobby New York Athletic Club. These two characters are about as different as American men get, but they both ask a question a lot of Americans are asking: How did we get to the point where facts are offensive? This country started out with Thomas Jefferson saying, “There is not a truth existing which I fear…or would wish unknown to the whole world,” but today’s liberal-arts graduates have created an environment where anything that makes anyone uncomfortable is hate speech, even if it’s true—in many cases, especially if it’s true.

Here are 10 true statements that millions of Americans find offensive:

Do read on.

[Balog]

It's rather disingenuous to cite facts and ignore the argument implicit in the context of their usage. Citing that racial groups may have varied mean intelligence is not just an interesting factoid in conversations on the American school systems, it's a commentary. Let me put it this way: if you're having a conversation about the defense budget, and the other person brings up similarities between the US Army and the armies of Nazi Germany, one can safely assume this is not intended as a simple observation but to convey a loaded impression.

The issue with separating racial and cultural factors is that cultural groups tend towards racial hegemony. The issue with conflating IQ tests and any type of practical measure of actual real world abilities should be obvious if you've ever known lots of really smart people (or just look at all the folks with genius level IQ test scores in Washington DC).

[makattak]

It's rather disingenuous to cite facts and ignore the argument implicit in the context of their usage. Citing that racial groups may have varied mean intelligence is not just an interesting factoid in conversations on the American school systems, it's a commentary. Let me put it this way: if you're having a conversation about the defense budget, and the other person brings up similarities between the US Army and the armies of Nazi Germany, one can safely assume this is not intended as a simple observation but to convey a loaded impression.

The issue with separating racial and cultural factors is that cultural groups tend towards racial hegemony. The issue with conflating IQ tests and any type of practical measure of actual real world abilities should be obvious if you've ever known lots of really smart people (or just look at all the folks with genius level IQ test scores in Washington DC).

The varied mean intelligence comment was in response to the article which claimed that certain countries with very homogenous racial make-up get much better results than the US, on average, and have teacher's unions. The article ignored the homogenous racial make-up and praised the teacher's unions.  

You seem to be arguing that the teachers unions must be driving the success of Finland, Singapore, and South Korea.

As to your second point, can we get a mouth hanging open smilie?

You dispute that the best single indicator for most real world success is IQ? It is obviously not the only factor and also not a sufficient cause, but to say that IQ is completely irrelevant?

Wow.

Just to be sure, you understand we are talking about averages and statistics, not one specific individual, right?

[makattak]

For example, let's see we are having a bet on which child is most likely to succeed later in life.

One comes from a solid middle class family and has an IQ of 95.

One comes from a poor single mother and has an IQ of 140.

One comes from an intact, poor family and has an IQ of 100.

Which one are you putting your money on for having a successful, lucrative career?

[Balog]

  I'm saying that culture influences academic achievement as much or more than racial makeup, but that because culture and race often coincide they tend to be conflated.

I'm saying that IQ test scores alone are a poor indicator of success, yes. It's a way for people to pat themselves on the back more than an indicator of actual real world abilities. Go to a Mensa meeting sometime.

Now, obviously a person who does well on an IQ test has a better chance of succeeding in the business world than a retard. Is that some remarkable point? Once you get past a certain minimum of intellectual horsepower required to function, there are a lot of factors other than sheer complex, abstract reasoning ability that come into play.

[makattak]

I'm saying that culture influences academic achievement as much or more than racial makeup, but that because culture and race often coincide they tend to be conflated.

I'm saying that IQ test scores alone are a poor indicator of success, yes. It's a way for people to pat themselves on the back more than an indicator of actual real world abilities. Go to a Mensa meeting sometime.

Now, obviously a person who does well on an IQ test has a better chance of succeeding in the business world than a retard. Is that some remarkable point? Once you get past a certain minimum of intellectual horsepower required to function, there are a lot of factors other than sheer complex, abstract reasoning ability that come into play.

Just to be sure, you understand we are talking about averages and statistics, not one specific individual, right?

And, as noted before, you haven't answered a single one of my questions while I have answered all of yours.

Allow me to post them, again:

Let me ask something then. Are black people, on average, stronger and faster than white people (you could put asian as an option, too)? Yes or no?

For example, let's see we are having a bet on which child is most likely to succeed later in life.

One comes from a solid middle class family and has an IQ of 95.

One comes from a poor single mother and has an IQ of 140.

One comes from an intact, poor family and has an IQ of 100.

Which one are you putting your money on for having a successful, lucrative career?

[Balog]

Oh teh noes, I'm not answering your bullsh** questions!!!! I must be intellectually bereft if I'm failing to play your games, right? Only possible explanation.

I've spoken of averages and statistics repeatedly so this is a purely troll question.

Do you have documentation proving a significant disparity between blacks and whites, given equivalent levels of nutrition and effort expended towards fitness? Women are on average smaller and weaker physically than men all else being equal, but I've not seen any data to indicate that for the various races.

Vague hypothetical. Pretty weak argument you have there, if the best you can muster is insulting troll questions and silly what ifs.

[makattak]

Oh teh noes, I'm not answering your bullsh** questions!!!! I must be intellectually bereft if I'm failing to play your games, right? Only possible explanation.

I've spoken of averages and statistics repeatedly so this is a purely troll question.

Do you have documentation proving a significant disparity between blacks and whites, given equivalent levels of nutrition and effort expended towards fitness? Women are on average smaller and weaker physically than men all else being equal, but I've not seen any data to indicate that for the various races.

Vague hypothetical. Pretty weak argument you have there, if the best you can muster is insulting troll questions and silly what ifs.

And I've responded with articles, studies, and logic.

I've asked a simple question. If you are firm in your belief that there are no significant differences between races, the answer should be very easily "No, blacks are not on average faster or stronger than whites." or "Blacks may be stonger and faster than whites, but that is simply a product of their culture."

Instead, you take it personally and insult me.

Second question you could easily answer that you cannot tell who will be more successful because IQ is not an indicator of future success.

Again, same response.

I've tried to make this about the question. As I stated, I freely answer your questions as I am willing to have an honest debate. If a question in an honest debate has a premise with which I disagree, I address the problems with the premise; I do not ignore the question and then attack the questioner. I thought that was how polite disagreements work?

[brimic]

One comes from a solid middle class family and has an IQ of 95.

If you are going to cherry pick odd circumstances, then so am I.
I am friends of  a family of masons where none went to college, none are anything above average intelligence (from what I can tell), and run a family business worth millions.

[Balog]

And I've responded with articles, studies, and logic.

The first two linked articles are just criticisms of a Slate article attacking twin studies. The third is an abstract that points to a genetic link to heritability of intelligence. Out of curiosity, have you read the actual study itself and not just the abstract?

I've asked a simple question. If you are firm in your belief that there are no significant differences between races, the answer should be very easily "No, blacks are not on average faster or stronger than whites." or "Blacks may be stonger and faster than whites, but that is simply a product of their culture."

Instead, you take it personally and insult me.

Where have I said there are no differences between the races? Obviously there are. Height, build, hair and eye color etc. There are a wide variety of purely physical traits that are largely influenced by genetics, and some that are purely determined by it. I'm not black, so I don't know how I could "take it personally" when you assert black people are genetically determined to be generally stupider than white people, and attempt to draw larger conclusions from that.

Second question you could easily answer that you cannot tell who will be more successful because IQ is not an indicator of future success.

Again, same response.

It is one indicator. I think you’re giving it undue weight. Significant outliers on either end of the intelligence curve are quite significant, although the very low end is far more so than the very high end. But there’s a huge swath in the middle where intelligence score has very little to do with performance in life. To compare it to purely physical characteristics (which you seem insistent on doing) for people who are so obese they can’t stand under their own power and people who are so emaciated their immune system is compromised due to lack of nutrition then weight is by far the most important characteristic of health. But for people who are a few lbs overweight or folks who are a little too skinny then there are other more important indicators.

I've tried to make this about the question. As I stated, I freely answer your questions as I am willing to have an honest debate. If a question in an honest debate has a premise with which I disagree, I address the problems with the premise; I do not ignore the question and then attack the questioner. I thought that was how polite disagreements work?

I’ve addressed your questions. But I’ll also not ignore people drawing conclusions from the data that are not warranted. And I’m not going to so over correct from the PC folks who accuse everyone of racism that I’ll give a free pass to actual racist conclusions that result from misapplication of the data. The accusation of playing the race card (in a discussion of whether or not certain races are significantly stupider than others) is fairly ironic.

If you observe that genetics is one factor affecting intelligence I fully agree with that. If you observe that certain people groups tend towards one side or the other of the curve of intelligence I’d agree with that, although I’d argue that the influence of geography and inter-breeding between the people in that region are the actual influence there, not race per se. But since this discussion was started with the theme of success in school, I would argue that those factors are not relevant. People who fail to meet a certain threshold of intelligence are unable to succeed intellectually regardless of their culture or other factors. People over a certain threshold can succeed (to a point) regardless of other factors. Blacks may be X points lower on average, and a portion of that may be genetic. But to take that assertion and then go on to “And that’s why inner city areas and schools are so f***ed up, because those blacks are just too stupid to do well” is unjustified.

[makattak]

If you are going to cherry pick odd circumstances, then so am I.
I am friends of  a family of masons where none went to college, none are anything above average intelligence (from what I can tell), and run a family business worth millions.

I'm responding to the IQ doesn't mean anything for success.

In my example it is certainly POSSIBLE that the gentleman with the 95 IQ outperforms the other two. Providing me with examples that prove it possible doesn't really contradict my argument.

I'm not arguing that IQ is all there is and without a high IQ no one will have any success ever, anywhere.

I am arguing the the BEST SINGLE PREDICTOR for success is IQ. Many smart people are failures. Many "dumb" people are successes. That isn't the prevailing trend, though.

[Balog]

I'm responding to the IQ doesn't mean anything for success.

In my example it is certainly POSSIBLE that the gentleman with the 95 IQ outperforms the other two. Providing me with examples that prove it possible doesn't really contradict my argument.

I'm not arguing that IQ is all there is and without a high IQ no one will have any success ever, anywhere.

I am arguing the the BEST SINGLE PREDICTOR for success is IQ. Many smart people are failures. Many "dumb" people are successes. That isn't the prevailing trend, though.

No one is saying IQ means nothing. That's a strawman.


Saying other factors beside intelligence are as important as intelligence (above a certain threshold) and that results on IQ tests are not the single best predictor of success is not the same as saying it is utterly irrelevant.

[makattak]

The first two linked articles are just criticisms of a Slate article attacking twin studies. The third is an abstract that points to a genetic link to heritability of intelligence. Out of curiosity, have you read the actual study itself and not just the abstract?

The first two linked articles were linked because of the studies referenced in the footnotes and the body of the posts. I linked them and cited the studies referenced in the articles.
 

Where have I said there are no differences between the races? Obviously there are. Height, build, hair and eye color etc. There are a wide variety of purely physical traits that are largely influenced by genetics, and some that are purely determined by it. I'm not black, so I don't know how I could "take it personally" when you assert black people are genetically determined to be generally stupider than white people, and attempt to draw larger conclusions from that.

You have not said there were no differences. Until now you have avoided admiting that there were. Thank you for clarifying that. Also, your characterizaion of "stupider" is unnecessarily inflamatory. By your formulation, whites are "stupider" than asians by just about the same amount as blacks are "stupider" than whites.

It is one indicator. I think you’re giving it undue weight. Significant outliers on either end of the intelligence curve are quite significant, although the very low end is far more so than the very high end. But there’s a huge swath in the middle where intelligence score has very little to do with performance in life. To compare it to purely physical characteristics (which you seem insistent on doing) for people who are so obese they can’t stand under their own power and people who are so emaciated their immune system is compromised due to lack of nutrition then weight is by far the most important characteristic of health. But for people who are a few lbs overweight or folks who are a little too skinny then there are other more important indicators.

It is the single most important indicator. In the study that I linked dealing with genomes, they found that the lowest possible amount that genetics (they linked two specific genes) plays in intellect was about 50%. Let me say that again, the LOWEST POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF ATTRIBUTION to intelligence from genetics is 50% according to that study.

I’ve addressed your questions. But I’ll also not ignore people drawing conclusions from the data that are not warranted. And I’m not going to so over correct from the PC folks who accuse everyone of racism that I’ll give a free pass to actual racist conclusions that result from misapplication of the data. The accusation of playing the race card (in a discussion of whether or not certain races are significantly stupider than others) is fairly ironic.

And now we've moved from "stupider" to "significantly stupider". I am pointing out studies and facts. Facts can be used for evil purposes. Just because some white skinhead can think that whites are the superior race (which, given that Asians tend to be more intelligent, I find that hilarious) from this research does not justify pretending it does not exist.

If you observe that genetics is one factor affecting intelligence I fully agree with that. If you observe that certain people groups tend towards one side or the other of the curve of intelligence I’d agree with that, although I’d argue that the influence of geography and inter-breeding between the people in that region are the actual influence there, not race per se. But since this discussion was started with the theme of success in school, I would argue that those factors are not relevant. People who fail to meet a certain threshold of intelligence are unable to succeed intellectually regardless of their culture or other factors. People over a certain threshold can succeed (to a point) regardless of other factors. Blacks may be X points lower on average, and a portion of that may be genetic. But to take that assertion and then go on to “And that’s why inner city areas and schools are so f***ed up, because those blacks are just too stupid to do well” is unjustified.

The difference between a person with a 105 IQ and a person with a 100 IQ is probably imperceptible. The difference between a group with an average IQ of 105 and a goup with a 100 IQ is rather significant.

Incidentally, the reason this is being discussed is because the article was comparing the results of very different countries. Rooster simply pointed out that the article ignored the genetic component and instead claimed it was all environment.

Further, inner city schools and children are not failing because blacks are stupid. The solution to that problem has absolutely nothing to do with the genetic issue we are discussing here. It has to do with horrible government, a terrible cutlure, and no accountability.

A person with a 95 IQ probably won't score as well as a person with a 100 IQ in his education. However, that doesn't mean that his education must be abandoned as a lost cause. He'll just likely get a lower C than the 100 IQ student (if our schools still graded as the scale was meant to be used.)

I've responded to this argument because too many people were denying the extreme importance of genetics, to the point of thinking that if it is true that 75% (to pick a number that is above the minimum of 50%) of intellect is due to genetics that is an argument for redistribution.

If you base your philosophy on falsehoods, it will come crashing down. The truth will always win out. (The gods of the copybook headings will not be ignored for long.)

[makattak]

No one is saying IQ means nothing. That's a strawman.


Saying other factors beside intelligence are as important as intelligence (above a certain threshold) and that results on IQ tests are not the single best predictor of success is not the same as saying it is utterly irrelevant.

I'm saying that culture influences academic achievement as much or more than racial makeup, but that because culture and race often coincide they tend to be conflated.

I'm saying that IQ test scores alone are a poor indicator of success, yes. It's a way for people to pat themselves on the back more than an indicator of actual real world abilities. Go to a Mensa meeting sometime.

Now, obviously a person who does well on an IQ test has a better chance of succeeding in the business world than a retard. Is that some remarkable point? Once you get past a certain minimum of intellectual horsepower required to function, there are a lot of factors other than sheer complex, abstract reasoning ability that come into play.

You say they are a poor indicator of success. You say that environment is more important than genetics. I say they are the single most important indicator. I say that genetics is far more important than environment. Where's the strawman?

[Scout26]

I'm not seeing this one getting any better....