That's the whole item. Should he have said more?
For links to more commentary on the abysmally bad John Derbyshire piece, go here.
IN THE COMMENTS: Patrick said:
He should have added another line, informing NRO readers that Derbyshire is no longer an NR contributor.Remember when National Review fired Ann Coulter?
UPDATE: Rich Lowry announces that NR has fired Derbyshire. After some nice compliments — "he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer" — and some half-compliments — he's "maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative" — Lowry calls the new piece "nasty and indefensible." NR would never have published it, yet the name, National Review, is getting used to inflate its prominence. "Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise." Lowry calls the article "so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation." Perhaps it is what Derbyshire wanted, and now he's got a powerful send-off.
Posts
320 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 320 of 320Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with income.
It doesn't necessarily *determine* income, but it certainly correlates with it!
Why isn't this racist?
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/04/06/crowd-beats-strips-robs-tourist-on-st-patricks-day-incident-caught-on-camera/
If it was a bunch of white people and the black guy was getting beat up, I promise you it would be called racism.
Of course Andy R. would say no.
And I am the son of a single mother who grew up on a farm and worked most of her life in factories as a laborer, and a paranoid schizophrenic father. I spent my formative years living first in a trailer and then in a public housing project until I was 9.
But I was encouraged to follow my intellectual interests at every step of the way.
It's not genetics, or income, or race. It's culture.
As for me, Palladian, standardized tests took me far in life. I milked them for all they are worth.
Meanwhile, a guy from my hometown who had to repeat first grade (and became quite popular because he was the first kid with a drivers license in my high school class) is a millionaire many, many times over. Sells tires. Owns gas stations. Convenience stores. All kinds of shit.
It doesn't necessarily *determine* income, but it certainly correlates with it!
Agreed. Imprecise wording. It's late.
Rev -- Intelligence doesn't correlate at all with income because you cannot measure intelligence therefore you have nothing to correlate.
The idea that intelligence can be measured and quantified as a number, through the medium of a test, is ridiculous.
Your baldly stating it does not make it so.
We measure all sorts of things "through the medium of a test". I'm sure that Professor Althouse has graded a test or two in her time - do you want to tell her that she was engaged in a ridiculous exercise?
Tests which measure IQ either directly or indirectly (SAT's, college exams, etc) are widely used in our society, and the results of these tests have extremely good predictive power when it comes to life outcomes. Which is why we use them, after all. It would be pretty damn peculiar if we had this vast and expensive training and testing apparatus for tests which mean ... nothing.
Meanwhile, I was reading my late aunt's college-level philosophy books in my spare time, and teaching myself how to build electrical circuits, and making hundreds of drawings of everything I could.
Unless you are telling me that you would have failed a test on the material in those college-level philosophy books, and failed tests on electrical circuits, I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Is it probably true that smart people do well in life? Sure, it's probably true. It's also a nice thing to believe, especially for an avowed atheist on Easter Weekend.
But there's no way to measure it. Just like there's no way to measure God.
Intelligence doesn't correlate at all with income because you cannot measure intelligence therefore you have nothing to correlate.
Recursive stupidity at its finest.
It's some really bizarre coincidence that certain ethnic groups do exceptionally well in term of income, others do medium well, and others do poorly.
The SAT is not an IQ test or an intelligence test, according to the makers of the SAT. The letters SAT stand for nothing. The SAT has changed dramatically since its inception. You have no idea what you are talking about, and I do, and you look like the idiot you are.
College exams measure what you learned from what was presented in a college course. Have you been to college?
You obviously have not been to law school. As for Althouse's tests, they more than likely are fact patterns based on the cases she covered in her courses. That's what all law school tests are like.
You don't have any idea what you are talking about, and it shows. You look like a fool. Which is what everybody who spews about IQ ends up looking like once you scratch the surface, which is mighty ironic.
"We measure all sorts of things "through the medium of a test". I'm sure that Professor Althouse has graded a test or two in her time - do you want to tell her that she was engaged in a ridiculous exercise?"
I'm a college teacher as well. Grading is a ridiculous exercise. What's important is teaching. Grading is administrative nonsense.
I used to fail tests all the time, out of lack of interest and hatred of filling in little bubbles with a pencil. A test is only meaningful if you ascribe meaning to it. Otherwise, it's something that gets in the way of learning and teaching.
Link works now (or traffic isn't too huge to block my access).
One item that jumps out at me is the advice to avoid large concentrations of blacks - evidently to minimize the risk of encountering the 5% of blacks that are ferociously hostile toward whites. I don't know if Derb's statistic is right, but I would think that this cohort is not evenly spread out.
Futhermore, not all hostility is potentially violent. Reverend Wright's church and Nation of Islam are intensely anti-white, but I'm not aware of any violence being associated with either (other than Malcolm X's assassination regarding the latter).
Wouldn't avoiding urban blight areas address distance oneself from most black thugs, and most thugs of all other races?
Is it probably true that smart people do well in life? Sure, it's probably true.
Hey, you're conceding that some people are smarter than others! For you, that's real progress.
Of course, if some people are in fact smarter than others, how would we ever even know it? After all, tests don't mean anything! We cannot assume that Fred is smarter than Bob just because Fred got a Phd in physics while Bob was flunking out of high school. So how can we know if Fred's doing better in life is due to his being smarter?
It's some really bizarre coincidence that certain ethnic groups do exceptionally well in term of income, others do medium well, and others do poorly.
Your problem, dumb ass, is that you don't understand that IQ does not measure intelligence. You cannot prove that it does, likely because you don't even understand what IQ is or have the vaguest notion of the history of the concept. But even if you did, you could prove nothing, because there is nothing to prove. IQ is fiction. Intelligence cannot be measured.
Of course, if some people are in fact smarter than others, how would we ever even know it?
If some people are more beautiful than other people, how do you know it? Do you have a BQ test?
There is no such thing as IQ. There is such a thing as intelligence. It cannot be measured with a battery of tests.
Incidentally, you brought up the SAT. Tell us about it. What's on it? How is it different now than it used to be, and why is it different? (This is always fun for me, so humor me.)
I did really, really well on the SAT, because I knew it was the only way I could get into college with my grades.
I graduated high school with a C average and got a 1540 score on the SAT (math has always been my deficiency), back before they changed it in 1994.
Meaningless.
I'm a college teacher as well. Grading is a ridiculous exercise. What's important is teaching. Grading is administrative nonsense.
How do you determine if your students have learned the material?
I used to fail tests all the time
And yet you somehow managed to become a college professor? You're not being entirely honest here. Why don't you stop that?
Q -- Perhaps you don't understand what you don't understand, and you should concede the gross over-simplicity of your worldview.
"Could we argue about where the line is and whether it's fair for a multitude of black writers to express their distrust of whites and police officers (not necessarily the same) in the pages of major newspapers? Sure, we could argue about that."
Just so long as we don't commit failing satire in an attempt to do so. It's at least possible Derb was attempting it. It's pretty obvious that he failed.
I went to link after link and read "the talk" and I think it's probably worthwhile pointing out that, while it may be true that black parents give these talks, it's probably not healthy for society when they are accompanied by assumptions that white boys (or hispanic boys, or asian boys) don't have to present a submissive attitude to authority in order to stay out of trouble.
Life isn't fair. I'm willing to agree without reserve that black men face more suspicion, for whatever reason. But the directions about how to behave once that happens are exactly the *same* for white boys. Be polite, respectful and submissive. Don't lose your temper.
A "you're not the boss of me!" attitude might be understandable, but it's going to get a person, *any* person, into more trouble.
Telling young people that the other race is out to get them can not possibly make anything better. And this whole *thing* has been all about affirming some fundamental truth that white people (or at least white hispanics) are out to shoot black kids. It's a lie easily shown to be a lie by statistics, even if Zimmerman had racially targeted and hunted down and shot Martin, which he didn't.
What is served by the lie? The only thing is to affirm the message of the "talk." Whites are out to get you and because of this you have to do things *special* because you're black, that white boys do not have to do.
It's not that having numerous articles in papers across the country talk about "the talk" isn't *fair*. It's that nothing about it reduces racial animosities. A person would almost think that the purpose of *all* of it was to increase those animosities.
And we can look at this article by Derbyshire and condemn it because we can see how damaging it was... but it's damaging when Sharpton and Jackson and whoever else abetted by NBC does it *too*.
And we probably ought to be equally outraged. But we're not. Because anyone being outraged is called a racist.
The SAT is not an IQ test or an intelligence test, according to the makers of the SAT.
The SAT is a g-loaded test. Of course since you posses the intellect of a head of cabbage you don't even know what that means.
But if you look it up at wikipedia you will see this -
Research suggests that the SAT, widely used in college admissions, is primarily a measure of g. A correlation of .82 has been found between g scores computed from an IQ test battery and SAT scores.
To put that into language you can understand, it means that the SAT measures the same thing as IQ tests - intelligence.
Tests measure the ability and willingness of people to take tests.
Unsurprising that racist hypocrite Andy is jim-dandy with Marion Barry's slur on Asians. It's what you'd expect from a supporter of the
anti-semitic party
But if you look it up at wikipedia
Well, you must be an expert on all things g, then, having given it a cursory look on the Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, over the years the SAT has dumped analogies, antonyms, quantitative comparisons, and most of the abstract math that made it resemble an IQ test. The SAT now has essays, an editing test, straightforward algebra, and functions.
See, Q, I know all this because I have been coaching the SAT for almost 20 years. I've also taught numerous other entrance exams. So I'm what you might call an expert on the subject of tests that allege to test intelligence.
You, you went and fucking looked up shit on Wikipedia and copied it here. So, you aren't much of an expert on alleged tests of intelligence, are you? No, you are more of a fraudulent blowhard.
Looking forward to your response.
IQ tests measure your ability to take IQ tests, which measure nothing.
It's phrenology.
I graduated high school with a C average and got a 1540 score on the SAT (math has always been my deficiency), back before they changed it in 1994.
Meaningless.
And you also did really well on your IQ test, you said earlier.
And you also managed to become a college professor, you say.
And you claimed that you did not do better in high school because you found your courses boring.
All of which adds up to a textbook case of a high IQ person doing high IQ things. Nothing "meaningless" about it.
What is "meaningless" is the attempt of a high IQ college professor (and in a math or science field, I suspect) to assert that there is no such thing as measurable intelligence when he himself has gotten to where he is by proving the precise opposite.
Or is it your contention that any schmuck in your high-school class could have been handed a professorship?
I remember racing thoughtlessly through the SAT in 1993 because I was promised a hamburger upon completion.
you went and fucking looked up shit on Wikipedia and copied it here.
I had some misguided faith that you might listen to outside sources who tell you that intelligences exists and is measurable.
Was Albert Einstein an intelligent person, in your opinion? if yes, why do you think it?
I know all this because I have been coaching the SAT for almost 20 years.
And based on your vast and extensive knowledge of the SAT, what does it measure?
over the years the SAT has dumped analogies, antonyms, quantitative comparisons, and most of the abstract math that made it resemble an IQ test.
I'd point out that it hasn't, but then you'd say "you went and fucking looked it up" or some such similar intellectual rebuttal.
What is "meaningless" is the attempt of a high IQ college professor (and in a math or science field, I suspect) to assert that there is no such thing as measurable intelligence when he himself has gotten to where he is by proving the precise opposite.
Or is it your contention that any schmuck in your high-school class could have been handed a professorship?
I was never handed anything in my life. I gotten where I've gotten through work and talent and the providence of God. The point I'm trying to make is that what I am and what I am capable of is not measurable on some arbitrary scale!
My concern in life is art. Test scores matter not at all in art. What matters is what you can do with your hands and your mind. A test cannot measure that; only what you do matters. Science and math also work that way, but many people pretend otherwise.
Tests measure the ability and willingness of people to take tests.
Obviously.
But neither of those are as small a thing as you are implying. Many people lack either the ability, the willingness, or both.
If this was not the case then everybody in America would have a law degree from Harvard, an engineering degree from MIT, a literature degree from Yale, and a medical degree from Johns Hopkins - all at the same time.
So why don't they?
I'd point out that it hasn't
Then you'd be saying something that isn't true and you'd demonstrate further that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And so you are sadly reduced to pointing to an obviously smart person, Einstein, and saying that he is smart, and somehow hoping that Albert Einstein's intelligence will rub off on your utter lack of knowledge about what the SAT is, or is not, or the fiction that is IQ. Terribly, terribly sad.
Also, there is no such thing as g. IQ and g and any other letter or series of letters you can find on Wikipedia will not change the obvious fact that intelligence, like beauty or poetry or art, cannot be measured with numbers.
The point I'm trying to make is that what I am and what I am capable of is not measurable on some arbitrary scale!
The point I am making is that what you are and what you are capable of is in fact measurable on some arbitrary scale. If if wasn't then you would not posses the credentials you are so proud of, and without them you would not be able to do what you do.
A test cannot measure that; only what you do matters.
"What you do" is a test. A test measures "what you do".
Reliance on test scores is like reliance on penis size as a measure of the quality of a lover. I once had a lover who had a 10-inch-long penis, so large and thick and wonderful that you nearly couldn't believe it was real.
He was one of the worst, most boring fucks you could ever imagine.
National Review's slide has been sad to watch. I've subscribbed for over thirty years and remember how it courageously stood athwart history yelling stop. Now it has become the Washongton Generals of the conservative movement.
you are sadly reduced to pointing to an obviously smart person, Einstein
Why is he "obviously" smart?
Stop defecating on your keyboard long enough to answer that, if you can.
P.S.: The SAT measures how well you take a useless, meaningless standardized test called the SAT.
The SAT is drastically different now than it was, and was drastically different then than it was before that. It must evolve to remain ahead of its critics.
But goofballs who know absolutely nothing about the SAT will still say it measures this fictional thing called IQ, or g, or some other letters. Despite the fact that you don't even have the slightest clue what is on the test. You know so little that you are using Wikipedia -- Wikipedia! as your source.
Embarrassing you, dude. Just embarrassing.
National Review's slide has been sad to watch. I've subscribbed for over thirty years and remember how it courageously stood athwart history yelling stop.
Are you talking about their opposition to the civil rights movement?
Einstein was obviously smart because he did brilliant things. Just like Yeats did brilliant things. And NASCAR mechanics.
You did not need an IQ test to know that Einstein was smart, just as you do not need a beauty test to know that Ashton Kutcher is a hunky dreamboat, or that F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote heavenly sentences, or that Blake Griffin can dunk very well.
Get over yourself. You know so little about so much that you are browsing Wikipedia and bringing it to an argument with me about IQ and the SAT.
You are pathetic, dude. You want so badly to believe in a crackpot science for some reason. Nothing wrong with that. The sad part is that you are lazy. You have no idea what the assumptions are in what you want to believe, or what the history of it is, or even what the content of the tests about the thing are.
As I say, pathetic.
Reliance on test scores is like reliance on penis size as a measure of the quality of a lover. I once had a lover who had a 10-inch-long penis, so large and thick and wonderful that you nearly couldn't believe it was real.
That is a really dumb analogy.
You can "test" a persons penis length. You can "test" a persons quality as a lover. You obviously have done both, so we know it is possible.
The two tests measure two different things. If you are surprised that it is otherwise then you must be likewise surprised that a cars dyno test is not a good indication of how many MPG it gets. And if that surprises you then you are not as intelligent as you've been telling me you are.
Tests measure things. That's why have them, that's we we use them. They don't all measure the same things, but they do measure things. We have tests which measure intelligence. In fact we have a lot of tests which measure it.
Peoples lives depend on how well they do on these tests, to a large extent. People with college degrees earn more money then people without them, for instance.
opposition to the civil rights movement
Try Act, not movement, and capitalize. Also, you are an anti-religious bigot, worse than any racist.
People with college degrees earn more money then people without them
It's than, and any smart person would know this.
Tests measure things.
Not IQ tests. They measure nothing, because IQ is fiction. Therefore, by your argument, they are useless.
But go back to Wikipedia for some super-awesome insight and bring it back here.
Try Act, not movement, and capitalize.
Wait, do you not know that National Review was opposed to the civil rights movement?
Einstein was obviously smart because he did brilliant things. Just like Yeats did brilliant things. And NASCAR mechanics.
Fair enough.
Then can you explain why certain groups of people keep doing "brilliant things" and certain other groups of people .... don't?
Can you explain why Jews keep producing brilliant scientists and the Irish keep producing brilliant writers and the Scotch-Irish keep producing brilliant NASCAR mechanics, and blacks ..... do not?
Can you explain why brilliance is not equally distributed among the people of the world? Can you explain why Europe is Europe and Asia is Asia and Africa is Africa? Why the people in these different places are so very different when it comes to producing "obviously smart" people who "did brilliant things"?
IQ is fiction
Why is it fiction?
If you have an argument to make, go ahead and make it.
But stop repeating the same moronic assertions over and over.
Q and Seven Machos, can we all get together and affirm, despite our differences of opinion, that Andy R. is a measurably stupid, bigoted little douchebag?
Andy R, have you ever sucked a black man's cock?
If not, I think you're a RACIST!
Hey, Andy R!
Still waiting for you to tell me the demographics of the place you live and where you send you kids to school.
I'm sure it must be a majority black town, yes?
Andy R. is a measurably stupid, bigoted little douchebag?
Does this mean our lunch date in New York is off?
I'm sure it must be a majority black town, yes?
I live in Atlanta.
Does this mean our lunch date in New York is off?
Absolutely not! This is all a game we're playing here, right?
In person, we'd probably all get along famously.
It's easy to conflate all of this with the beautiful ambiguity and unpredictability of life.
I cook French, just so you know, when you come for din-din.
Still waiting for you to tell me the demographics of the place you live and where you send you kids to school.
Andy, you have kids?!
Dinner is OFF, in that case!
Andy, you have kids?!
I can't keep up with all the mistaken assumptions that people have about me here.
I live in Atlanta.
That's like saying "I live in New York". Jamaica, Queens is not exactly the same as the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Where in Atlanta?
What percentage of your kids junior-high/high school is black?
What percentage of your kids junior-high/high school is black?
I don't have kids. Do you have me confused with someone else?
I can't keep up with all the mistaken assumptions that people have about me here
Wonderful.
Can you tell me why some Israeli guy is shooting his ignorant mouth off about race relations in another country?
How many blacks or Arabs do you have next door to you there in Jerusalem?
Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with income
Or sense. See the way SM wins friends and influences people.
Do you have me confused with someone else?
I had you confused with an American.
I've made my argument. I keep making it, to your apparent chagrin. You don't even know what is on the tests you laud, Q. You have to go to Wikipedia to find out. It's really sad.
I'm sort of with Andy on this thread, even though he is generally an anti-religious bigoted douchebag.
Q is quite obviously a comically racist douchebag, and those are way worse. I hope Q becomes a slave tonight in a foreign land.
I'm sort of with Andy on this thread, even though he is generally an anti-religious bigoted douchebag.
Hugs!!!!1!!!!!one!!!!
Q, you may have more in common with Andy than you think - see my post. Maybe you should ask him out.
Andy, when are you coming over?
"That's why you do NOT live in a majority black neighborhood, even though you could buy property there for a bargain."
Seven: People do not choose to live in majority black neighborhoods because majority black neighborhoods tend to be poor, because black people tend to be poor. It's not an issue of skin color. It's an issue of wealth, and lack of wealth.
No. It's an issue of values, not wealth. My neighborhood used to be upper middle class. Then, about 8 years ago, the State starting renting out house on our block as Section 8. Within a year, everyone with kids had sold their homes and moved.
It's not about poverty, its about the ghetto values that cause poverty. Nobody wants to raise their family around that.
I cook French, just so you know, when you come for din-din
I hope you rinse them well first.
Fen -- But if you have values and not enough wealth, you are stuck. You could be the most virtuous person in the world, but you ain't moving if you are broke and have no other material resources.
So, it's about wealth.
The SAT now has essays, an editing test, straightforward algebra, and functions
The girls have taken over.
I was surprised that I got similar scores on the basic GRE in 1981 and in 1993, since I certainly didn't feel as sharp after working in Washington.
The GRE Verbal is the worst offender in terms of massive changing. The Math is largely unchanged, which is great if you are coaching, but the Verbal is completely different. Much harder in some ways; much easier in others. The other portion of the test is just totally, radically different. And the scoring range is changed.
The SAT changes are similarly radical.
The GRE and the SAT are not the same tests they were 10 years ago, and certainly not 20 or 40 years ago. Any comparison of within GRE or SAT sets over years is absurd in the extreme.
Meanwhile, the ACT, which makes no claim to intelligence testing explicitly or implicitly, chugs along basically the same.
but you ain't moving if you are broke and have no other material resources
Why couldn't those dirty poor people have stayed in Europe and Asia?
It amazed me that decent people didn't leave when neighborhoods went bad or worse, but we get accustomed to things when the water temperature rises slowly.
Northern Virginia became so rich, the only low-income housing is public and wretched. The trailer parks became $200k townhouse complexes.
If Derbyshire had taken more or less the common medians of the IQ distribution, the population differences would have been much less, % of the population wise.
Then you're in the region where other things swamp IQ in everyday life, and you don't any longer even consider it.
The IQ test is, against this fact, designed so that if you average away the things that swamp it in ordinary life, you get a correlation with life outcomes or whatever and, what amounts to the same thing, independence of age.
I'd presume linear regression and so forth eventually give you the questions to ask to get the sharpest test for what you want.
That's all good statistical stuff, but that it averages away what matters in everyday life tells you that it averages away what matters in everyday life.
So everybody's right.
nothing much to add on the issue of 'IQ"--much studied, but if i undertand the arguments IQ is considered a factor rather than a variable. You would have to review the literature on factor analysis to see how this works.
As for testing: i have over 20 years teaching in college, and i have come to the position that the only measure of what has been learned by students, is for students to tell me what they have learned. I am a believer in reflective learning. My "tests"
simply ask my students to tell me what they have learned. That proposition also tells me what i have taught or failed to teach.
Well here's an interesting mathematical question. It could even engage Derbyshire, if anybody wanted to engage Derbyshire instead of liquidating him for bad thoughts.
Designing an IQ test for the sharpest questions to guess lifetime outcomes and age independence, you gather whatever statistical data you can, with various questions having been asked, and so forth.
In this data you have, of course, black people.
They don't do as well in life.
So you have a bias in your IQ test, when you sharpen it up to be the best possible test.
Questions that correlate with being black predict (successfully!) a poorer lifetime outcome, and give a lower IQ, by design. Not out of racism but out of the mathematics of designing the best test.
This is, again, after averaging that precisely eliminates anything that swamps IQ in everyday life. The whole point is to swamp what swamps IQ, otherwise you don't get the best predictor of lifetime outcomes.
In ordinary life, a 30 point IQ difference simply doesn't matter, just taking a guess on the matter. It doesn't matter via other things mattering much more.
The social question to ask is not the mathematical one, but what is it that matters, and what is to be done?
One thing is horrible black leaders. Can the media be ridiculed into earning a profit somewhere other than pandering?
Another thing is some support for the idea that giving people free stuff is fatal to anybody, not just blacks. That's not a black problem but a lefty problem. It becomes a black problem.
It probably shows up in the IQ test, my original point, once they test has been sharpened up for a few iterations, as a lower IQ.
IQ is whatever correlates well with lifetime outcomes, and it is sought statistically.
It's neither cause nor effect.
There's a question Derbyshire could engage with, and is smart enough to do something with.
Stop giving people free stuff, first of all. See what develops then.
After reading there was contaversy about it, I read Derbyshire's article. Well backed up with facts and links to all that he said.
And one point- judge individuals you meet as individuals, but groups as groups. There's nothing he saids that doesn't make sense.
There's an exercise given often in school and in "diversity" training. List what you are. The top ten things. Such as father, husband, American, etc. Whites almost never put white in their list- even if it goes on past 10 to 20 or 30. Blacks usually list black in the top 5. Why the difference?
Blacks see racism in any action by whites. Working one day as a cashier in my part time job, had a customer present a credit card with no signature. Asked for his ID. No problem. Next customer was black. Credit card, no signature. "YOR'RE ONLY ASKING FOR MY ID BECAUSE I'M BLACK!", just that loud, came out of him. From the guy behind him (Thank God he was there) "He asked the guy before you for his ID, and he was white. Now shut up and show him youre ID." The black turned to shout something back, and saw a really big bearded guy wearing a Harley-Davidson T-shirt- the stereotypical bad-ass. He turned back to me and dug out his ID.
About 10 years ago went to a local water park with my then young daughter. Rode some of the ride with her where she could ride with an adult, and goot turned back from some where even with an adult she was too short. Children aren't stupid. My kids asked me, "How come all the black kids are riding the rides?" As in, all the ones as tall and shorter then my daughter. Told them the truth- the lifegiueards, uniformly white, were afraid for their well being to enforce the rules on blacks. Their mental, physical, and financial well being- being accused of racism would destroy them. But if a black kid got injured- hey, the insurance company would handle it.
Derbyshire mentioned the Fields awards, which got me to looking up other non-athletic pursuits. Chess- a search of international grandmaster turned up Marice Ashley, the FIRST African-American grandmaster. Looking though the google pictures, didn't see any any other pictures of any blacks from anywhere else- lots of Indians and Asians.
Loooking up Go masters was a little harder- no blacks I could find- but then- I couldn't find many.
I don't watch TV, but when eating out the bar TV's are often tuned to high stakes poker. At that level, the game is not pure chance, and black faces are rare.
Thomas Sowell's and Clarence Thomas's exist, they're both more well versed in language then me, but the IQ difference is real and undeniable- though it is denied, bnecause acknowledging its existence automatically makes onme a racist.
As far aas violence goes, FBI statistics tell the story. (And quoting statistics makes you racist.) Reported white on blcak (and Asian on black) rapes- zero for most years. Black on white (and Asian) rapes- a lot higher then zero. If you're a white or Asian women, staying out of Black neighborhoods at night, especially after you've been drinking a bit, is a GOOD idea. As is staying out of Muslim neighborhoods, but that's another discussion the elite aren't willing to have.
You can call Derbyshire's article disgusting, as you have. You can denounce it all you want. You can call him racist for printing it. You can wallow in pity for his misguided views.
What you cannot do is effectively rebut it. Rebutting the truth is difficult.
Espcially since he manages to footnote all his observations.
So I'm reading through this comment thread, and I'm bumming that Derb shot himself in the foot, I'm bumming that he won't be writing for NR anymore, I'm bumming because I'll be branded a racist for saying I like Derb's writing in general, and I'm bumming about the never-ending race war foisted upon a mostly non-racist country.
But then I had to laugh at Seven Machos and Q arguing about the particulars of the SAT, and Palladian dishes up dirt on an endowed but lazy lover. For the record, Palladian, I don't know the appropriate response to an admission like that? Sorry for your loss? Maybe 'it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog?'
In closing, is it racist for black leaders to constantly insinuate that whites are inferior because they are too stupid to rise above racism?
... abysmally bad John Derbyshire piece, ...
I usually enjoy your commentary, but that was pretty poor sputtering.
I'm not a fan of Derbyshire, but I am very disappointed in NRO. The response should be a honest discussion of what Derbyshire said, not a false claim that no one at NRO agrees with any of them. Look at some of the Derbyshire statements and ask your self to what extent you honestly disagree (and why supposed black leaders -- and our president -- ought to be addressing these issues instead of race hustling).
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/should_john_derbyshire_be_fired_for_being_an_insensitive_lout.html#ixzz1rSTQcbTd
Assuming Derbyshire meant well in defense of the White Race, his tactics are still recycled 1880s defenses asserting that "Separate But Equal" separation of the slightest darker skinned persons from white people is again a necessary action, and to Hell with 14th Amendment strict constructionists.
The problem with this recycled bullshit is that 1) it is not true, and 2)it is an attempt to roll back the last 50 years of race peace and good will because a few darker skinned teens have been bad, and 3)skin color has never been a good a measure of DNA and we are not so dumb that we will believe it again.
Maybe giving Obama a War on Women meme isn't good enough, so that we must also give him a War on non-whites to help him win his independent voters again who will re-elect him to disprove they are racist.
Thinking for ourselves is desperately needed. We must Ignore the potshots of Sharpton and Jackson, and keep our cool.
traditionalguy
Your analogy to the 1880's is forced and, in my opinion, in accurate.
Your other points are interesting. But the idea of rolling back 50 years of race piece may be sticking your head in the sand. It also assumes that the "black race" is a monolithic group that does not discern that there are serious problems in the conduct of young blacks.
@Palladian
The IQ test indicated you were in the upper percentile, you state that you are in the upper percentile, but that the test are invalid. I would posit that your teachers failed you, not the test. While I don't score in the genius range I was so bored with school I would often cut 1 or 2 months straight, and still manage A's and B's on my report cards.
And no, a high IQ doesn't mean you will be successful, just that you are aware that you're not successful. A good example would be our President. He's quite "successful" in that he won the election, but as president, he has been a disaster, and seems oblivious to the cause of that disaster.
People gifted with higher intelligence are often short changed in school, and I fear with "normalizing" it is getting worse.
Ps. Gates, and Jobs both dropped out IIRC. And Einstein did poorly in school also.
Pps. My wife scores the highest on the IQ test of anyone I have ever met, 188.(I tested her three times to be sure). All her life she has been a stay at home mother, but she's like Machiavelli when it comes to juggling our bank accounts.
Ppps. I know shade tree mechanics who can fix just about anything that's broken, yet have a hard time reading a restaurant menu.
Andy R. said...
Should he have said more?
That probably would have made it awkward for all of the racist conservatives.
Said the resident bigot.
It isn't about race dumbass. It's about culture.
Whether Debyshire's stats are accurate or not, an interesting counterpoint is in the US Army Historical Section's volume concerning black soldiers in WWII in the so-called "green books" (vets will know what I mean).
The problems the Army had with black troops (the initial plan was to have 1 division in 7 black, not 1 in 30) would seem to be attributable to segregation, but Derbyshire makes one wonder.
edutcher said...
Whether Debyshire's stats are accurate or not, an interesting counterpoint is in the US Army Historical Section's volume concerning black soldiers in WWII in the so-called "green books" (vets will know what I mean).
I'm a vet. I don't know what you mean. References? (as in links)
As I predicted, Instapundit waited to comment until he was sure he was in coordination with the right wing strategy. So, you'll see both Instapundit and, for example, Breitbart.com, comparing Derbyshire with the departure of Rosenberg at MMFA. Instapundit was very critical of left wing bloggers coordinating on an email list, but he should look in the mirror.
And notice also that Instapundit was happy the high traffic to the Taki site caused him difficulty in accessing the article. I guess he only tried one time and decided it would be more convenient for him if he just gave up. That way he doesn't have to say anything about the article written by a writer he used to link to with approval but now tells us he isn't completely surprised by this.
By this...what? The article he decided not to read but he knew Derbyshire was racist all along so he figures it's pretty bad?
The reason for his handling of this is that Instapundit knows that a large percentage of the conservative/Republican base actually agree with Derbyshire. This has been made absolutely clear by any browsing of the comments sections on conservative sites, as well as this "neutral" Althouse site. This is the same reason the National Review blocked all comments below Lowry's statement.
I see that folks have pointed out that Derbyshire was a self-labeled racist all along. And the National Review was okay with this, until this time he took it too far. The National Review knows much of their readership is racist and they like to have writers that please those folks without being too overt about it.
And that's how it shall remain. And Instapundit is cool with that. Not even Althouse wouldn't get into this. Just a quick note that it was an "abysmally bad" article and Lowry kept it short. Nothing else to see here. Back to business as usual.
But look at all the Althouse commenters that agree with Derbyshire's extremely racist article. They are not "Moby's", that is for sure. In the days before Debyshire's article appeared, conservative bloggers were attempting to claim that the uptick in racist comments under their posts in the wake of the Trayvon Martin case were probably plnated by people trying to make them look bad. Well, all the comments we're seeing across the right wing internet sites this weekend cannot possibly all be "Moby's" so lets cut that nonsense.
Here is a video clip of a white man beaten beaten and stripped by a mob of blacks.
I bet he wishes that he had heard Derbyshires advice.
Needless to say this racial hate crime has received zero attention. Compare and contrast to the Trayvon Martin affair.
look at all the Althouse commenters that agree with Derbyshire's extremely racist article.
It's not an extremely racist article, you illiterate oaf. It's an extremely accurate article.
Truth is to liberals like sunshine to a vampire.
Harold said...
Harold said...
Whether Debyshire's stats are accurate or not, an interesting counterpoint is in the US Army Historical Section's volume concerning black soldiers in WWII in the so-called "green books" (vets will know what I mean).
I'm a vet. I don't know what you mean. References? (as in links)
I mean the official Army history of its operations in WWII.
Here's a link to the study.
Fascinating stuff, although how much it proves Derbyshire or not, I can't say.
My initial reaction was, "This is the result of 80 years of Jim Crow".
Lyssa,
He recommended making the snap judgements based upon seeing people who might be in need of help, who might provide service to you, and strangers on the street. While he certainly conceded that there are plenty of blacks out there that are not a problem, he entirely did recommend prejudging based on the color of skin and nothing else in those circumstances. There was no discussion about evaluating the situation in those circumstances; it was color and color alone.
As a freshman at Cal, I was twice duped out of money by women claiming distress. Both were, they said, in the middle of ugly divorce proceedings. One's car had broken down; I forget what the other story was. But both claimed spousal abuse, and that they needed money to get somewhere immediately. They both said they would pay me back, and took my address.
I suppose I don't have to add that no repayment was forthcoming. Both women just happened to be Black.
I've made my argument. I keep making it, to your apparent chagrin.
Since your "argument" is that I am a "racist douchebag", chagrin does not correctly describe my reaction to it.
You're just another moronic lefty who thinks that calling people names is a useful substitute for thought.
Here are the question you ignored so that you could instead say "racist docuhebag".
Can you explain why certain groups of people keep doing "brilliant things" and certain other groups of people .... don't?
Can you explain why Jews keep producing brilliant scientists and the Irish keep producing brilliant writers and the Scotch-Irish keep producing brilliant NASCAR mechanics, and blacks ..... do not?
Can you explain why brilliance is not equally distributed among the people of the world? Can you explain why Europe is Europe and Asia is Asia and Africa is Africa? Why the people in these different places are so very different when it comes to producing "obviously smart" people who "did brilliant things"?
Edutcher--I am assuming by "green books' you are referring to the military histories of the war--the army recruited major historians to write these histories and they are indeed valuable sources on the campaigns in Europe and Japan. Available, but unfortunately, little read.
Q, you may have more in common with Andy than you think - see my post.
That's too inscrutable for me. You are saying that I believe that Jews are "a moderate amount or more" to blame "for the financial crisis"?
You are assuming facts not in evidence, since I have expressed no views at all on that topic.
Flash mobs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25mobs.html
Roger J. said...
Edutcher--I am assuming by "green books' you are referring to the military histories of the war--the army recruited major historians to write these histories and they are indeed valuable sources on the campaigns in Europe and Japan. Available, but unfortunately, little read.
Exactly.
I mean the official Army history of its operations in WWII.
Here's a link to the study.
Fascinating stuff, although how much it proves Derbyshire or not, I can't say.
My initial reaction was, "This is the result of 80 years of Jim Crow".
Interesting (fascinating) looking stuff. Glanced through a few pages. I'll out aside time to read it in toto.
Ann, what do you think about the extreme racism and anti-gay bigotry from so many of the folks who like to hang around your blog?Do you feel bad about not calling them out more often for their hateful and destructive opinions?
You make these attacks fairly frequently now and routinely do not actually provide evidence.
Harold said...
Interesting (fascinating) looking stuff. Glanced through a few pages. I'll out aside time to read it in toto.
Absolutely. When marketing types coined the phrase, "A book you can't put down", this is what they meant.
You finish it and you can only think, "An American tragedy".
Black on White crime. Video at link.
the white victim looks surprisingly like Andy R. What does that tell us?
Derbyshire was right.
New meme: Derbyshire was right.
Derbyshire's a bit of a weirdo (but not in a good way) and I generally skip his stuff, but most of the time anymore National Review is a crashing bore. They need a shake-up over there to get rid of the dead weight (like Kathryn Lopez).
The idea that intelligence can be measured and quantified as a number, through the medium of a test, is ridiculous.
Anything that actually exists can be quantified.
It could be (and probably is) true that no one number can quantify human intelligence, but the notion and human intelligence is immune to quantification is without any rational or scientific basis.
Instapundit waited to comment until he was sure he was in coordination with the right wing strategy.
Paranoia is not a pretty thing to see.
Andy,
"It seems the proper response is to explain why it's not dumb to believe in this fairy tale instead of calling me a religious bigot."
Well, Andy, I am with you 100%. I think there is something wrong with people who want me to take orders from their imaginary playmate. The idea that the Creator of the Universe wants to hear them whine about their problems also seems pretty stupid. If he cared, they would have no problems. So, if thinking people who believe idiotic things are idiots makes you a "bigot", I'm one too. You and I are bigots together. And as far as I can make out, that really is the whole story. They call us bigots, and we are supposed to feel bad about it. Bigot! Feel Bad!
Now, let's talk about this word "racist" you are so fond of tossing around. What is a "racist"?
"Michael -- Here is what I wish for you. I wish that tonight, as Easter looms, traders with guns will take you forcibly by ship to a faraway land, in chains, and sell you. I wish that you will be held captive and forced to work with no food until you die.
"
Actually, you dipshit, a worse fate would have been to leave me just where I was in Africa. If you come up with unrealistic metaphors, try to make them a bit more practical. There was a book a few years ago, written by a black IBM executive who was assigned to Africa for a while. He thanked god that his ancestors were enslaved. You idiot know nothing of what you say.
"Derbyshire's a bit of a weirdo (but not in a good way) and I generally skip his stuff,"
Yeah, math is tough.
Hey PinchingALoaf, here's a novel idea for you. How about you read some of Derb's essays yourself rather than wait for your talking points memo?
Thinking for yourself can be scary at first, but it can also be quite bracing!
Luckily progressive Democrats weren't successful implementing eugenics in the early 20th c. or we wouldn't have an American black community at all.
Andy R,
But maybe we disagree on how dumb people are being who think the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I think those people are being extremely extremely dumb. Maybe you think they are only a little dumb. Or maybe you're mormon yourself. I have no idea. But if all we're doing is disagreeing on the level of dumbness of religious people, then I don't understand how that makes me a bigot. Am I a religious bigot for thinking that people who believe in scientology and xenu and the volcano are dumb? Just because Americans grew up in a culture where zombie jesus was normalized, it doesn't make belief in him any less dumb.
And a happy Easter to you too, sir.
Freeman Hunt: The idea is, "Really? You think that stories and stats should inspire racist talks about how to treat people? Let's go through how that might work the other way."
Derbyshire has labeled himself a racist in the past, so you should probably stop trying to find ways to defend the indefensible.
And he also once wrote this in the National Review:
“All American politicians are liars and hypocrites about race, from Democrats like Hillary Clinton posing as champions of the downtrodden black masses while buying a house in the whitest town they can find, to Republicans pretending not to know that (a) many millions of nonblack Americans seriously dislike black people, (b) well-nigh every one of those people votes Republican, and (c) without those votes no Republican would ever win any election above the county level.”
Given all the conservatives defending his racist column (which can be seen in every comments section across the internet, including at this Althouse blog), it looks like in the above quote he was telling the truth!
As for the idea that all conservatives should be linking to his piece to denounce it, should all atheists be doing the same? He is, after all, an atheist as well as a conservative. Absurd.
He wrote for years at the leading conservative magazine in America, and it turns out they and their readership knew he was racist all along. As well as homophobic and misogynistic (someone dug up where he said he wishes women never got the right to vote, and wishes they would not vote). I wasn't a reader of his, so I didn't know that's the sort of jack-ass employed at the National Review, a magazine founded by a dude who, at one time, was in favor of segregation. But his readers knew he was a racist, and so did Rich Lowry. And they were cool with that, so long as he wasn't too conspicuous and overt about it so as to be put under the spotlight by the rest of us.
As Derbyshire said, the Republicans need the racists to win elections.
BTW, Derbyshire said he believes in God:
"I belong to the 16 percent of Americans who, in the classification used for a recent survey, believe in a 'Critical God.'" (His link takes us to: "Critical God (16%, but 21% in the relativist East), who watches the world but does not intervene.")
But his religious views are irrelevant. He was a writer for the leading conservative magazine in America, and he is a filthy, hardcore racist.
Now quit whinging about "Mobys" and face the reality that the conservative movement in America has a racism problem. A huge percentage of conservatives still, to this day, believe in that "Birther" nonsense about Obama, for example. That's because they're RACISTS. DUH!
Joseph Schmoe said...
Hey PinchingALoaf, here's a novel idea for you. How about you read some of Derb's essays yourself rather than wait for your talking points memo?
Should I also go read some David Duke essays?
I did read this by John Derbyshire, and it looks like he was telling the truth about the American conservative movement:
“All American politicians are liars and hypocrites about race, from Democrats like Hillary Clinton posing as champions of the downtrodden black masses while buying a house in the whitest town they can find, to Republicans pretending not to know that (a) many millions of nonblack Americans seriously dislike black people, (b) well-nigh every one of those people votes Republican, and (c) without those votes no Republican would ever win any election above the county level.”
Now you all go back to trying to fool the rest of us that there isn't a huge racism problem among your voting base. But I won't ever be fooled by that again. Not "Mobys". The GOP can't win the White House unless the white racists turn out in droves on election day.
The National Review knew what they were doing when they employed that stupid, disgusting man all those years. They just wanted it to be kept more on the downlow.
"you are already trying to pin the firing of Derbyshire on liberal Democrats when, in fact, it was a definitive conservative who fired Derbyshire."
No, it was what Margaret Thatcher (a true conservative) would call a wet. I agree it was not liberal Democrats. What difference does that make ?
By the way, my sister lives in an integrated neighborhood in Chicago (Beverly) which used to be a very expensive one. She hears gunshots most nights.
And it is still pretty expensive.
Some of you (especially Seven Machos) are denying the very existence of IQ. This is a mistake. IQ is that human quality measured by IQ tests. A circular definition, I know, but nonetheless this number has a huge correlation with income, college GPA, admission to graduate schools, prestigious jobs, and many other good things. Wishing it away will not change this fact.
@LoafingOaf: "The National Review knew what they were doing when they employed that stupid, disgusting man all those years. "
Be he as racist or disgusting as you like, he is not stupid.
http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Obsession-Bernhard-Greatest-Mathematics/dp/0452285259
Skookum -- There's no such thing as IQ. It is purely an academic construct. Wishing that it is something real doesn't make it so.
See how easy that is? See how easy your lame argument is to make?
Michael -- Why doesn't your sister move? Must be her low IQ.
I'm amused to see someone attempting to hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time:
1. Derbyshire is a racist loon who spreads hateful lies about blacks.
2. Derbyshire's assessment of white Republicans should be accepted as gospel.
Is there any other human ability as powerful as the ability to hear what we want to hear? :)
I read the "Bell Curve," and have read a lot of Derbyshire.
My problems with racial IQ gaps-
1. It doesn't fit my personal experience. Is it really possible for 20-40% of black Americans to be functionally retarded? Really? Ta-Nahesi Coates objects to "The Bell Curve," on these grounds, among others. It simply flunks the common sense test.
2. I think IQ does measure something and it does seem heritable. However, I think it's much more explanatory on the high end of the range than the lower. You don't get a 140 IQ from study. You have to have the genes.
On the low end it's not so simple. For example, average IQ scores in Africa are so low that Africans should be too dumb to live. However, they clearly are not all dead, so we have to ask what is being measured.
It seems to me that low measured IQ could be accounted for by living in a premodern society, or by having limited language skills, or by poor education, or a host of other reasons. IQ tests are not measuring anything important in that context. On the high end there are a few variables but on the low end there are multitudes.
For an extreme example, say you took an illiterate Central Asian tribesman with a measured IQ of 75 and compared him with a special education student in the US with the same score. Who would be the more capable person? It's pretty obvious to me that IQ measurements break down on the low end. IQ is a measurement devised by educated and intelligent people to explain a human quality. It works within a fairly restricted section of humanity, but doesn't explain much outside of a small section of modern, educated, societies.
On Derbyshire getting fired, it seems to me that very few of his critics actually engaged his arguments. It's not that hard to critique the idea that black Americans are doomed by biology to be antisocial, violent and stupid. Failing to actively disprove these notions allows them to take root and they will be repeated in private until they are comprehensively debunked. It's one thing to point out the sociology (black crime and poverty is obvious to everyone) but it's quite another to claim that dysfunction is genetic.
The failure of liberals to confront the astounding problems of black America without resorting to accusations of racism has left the debate over the causes of mass poverty and criminality to conservatives. Apparently some conservatives seem to think that if they are going to be called racists they might as well be racists.
Calling people racists for quoting crime statistics is like crying wolf. When Derbyshire comes around to explain those statistics with a truly racist explanation many people won't listen to the accusation. I think that's why many conservatives are having some trouble figuring out what's so different, and wrong, about what Derbyshire is saying. Pointing out problems is not the same as identifying causes. To paraphrase Derbyshire, "Sure, it's racist, but is it true?" If his critics can't show why it's not true, then Derb is going to win.
LoafingOaf said...
And notice also that Instapundit was happy the high traffic to the Taki site caused him difficulty in accessing the article...That way he doesn't have to say anything about the article written by a writer he used to link to with approval
Um, you have no actual evidence to support any of this silliness.
Revenant: I was just throwing that in the faces of the folks who are saying Derbyshire is bravely speaking the truth about black people. Derbyshire also said Republicans are afaid to acknowledge they rely on the white racist vote to win elections.
And wouldn't that explain why the National Review employs racists as long as they "dance around the lines" and aren't too explicit about it? They know what they're doing.
***
Skookum John: In the areas he was hired to write for the National Review, he's stupid and disgusting.
BTW, Skookum, a quick googling around shows that you go around the internet saying things like: "You'll have to be more specific about what constitutes racism nowadays. The word has lost its potency through overuse, much like 'fascism'." You don't find what Derbyshire wrote to constitute racism?
Google also shows that you, Skookum, are a rather hateful nutcase, who might do well taking a vacation from the toxic right wing media.
A few examples:
You said in glee on Gateway Pundit, when Harry Reid had cancelled a speech due to threats: "These evil Communists who sold out our American birthright for a mess of Obamacare pottage should be shunned at church, showered with drinks and table scraps in restaurants, shouted down in speeches, insulted by picketers outside their own homes, and treated with contempt and hatred every time they show their dirty ugly faces in public. This is war. These people hate you and look upon you as a slave and a donkey. Hate them back and treat them as your enemy. Read your Alinsky and apply every underhanded, uncivil technique therein to the cause of hounding the scum out of public life."
On this blog you said: Republicans [should] grow a pair and start running underhanded, unfair, inflammatory attack ads repeating the words of Democratic racists like Reid and Byrd, until they are hounded out of their jobs. If they're too genteel for that, then some swiftboat type groups should step up to the plate. But it's not like the Republicans stand to lose any black votes by stirring things up.
Alinsky rules apply. Destroy them with their own rules and make it personal. Make it hurt for individuals. Hit them again and again and again until careers And reputations are destroyed, and families are bankrupted. They'll get the message soon enough.
I am ready for all out war on the Left. We've been nice guys way too long.
And about this war you said: "It should be about scorched earth personal destruction all the time, sowing as much hatred and discord as possible."
Looks like the right-wing blogosphere has gotten you whipped up into a frenzy with all their crap about Alinsky, etc. Sad. But you said yourself you wanna stir shit up, sow the seeds of hatred, and blacks won't vote for your candidates anyway so why should you care.
***
Anyway, I'm still laughing about Instapundit pretending he couldn't access the racist article. How convenient.
Well, reading, or at least glancing, at all the comments here aon the Althouse blog shows not one person actually refuting what Derbyshire wrote. Attacking it. Calling it racist. Calling it unfortunate and appalling. But-- not refuting it.
And, contrary to what has been stated here, he did not state that high crime among blacks is related to lower average IQ. He pointed out IQ and jobs- not crime. It helps to actually read what you are critiquing.
He doesn't mention what causes the crime rate difference. He just mentions it exists. More then just mentions- that's a major part of what he wrote. And is correct- it exists. And was correct,also, in not blaming that on IQ. Me? I'd go for culture as the explanation. And leave it at that.
And then there is the laughable idea that IQ doesn't exist, and anyhow, cannot be measured. The military has been measuring IQ for a long, long time. Now it's the ASVAB. When I joined, it was the GCT/ARI. It determines what fields you're qualified to strike for. If you've got a low ASVAB, you aren't getting into nuclear power school. And amazingly enough, the lowest scorers on the ASVAB who go to nuclear power school do significantly less well then their higher scoring counterparts. It's almost scary how well ASVAB scores correlate to success in various military fields.
And having said that, I agree with the philosophy of one police department I've read of. They have both a high and a low cut-off score for police officer candidates. Officers who are too smnart get bored, and quit. An extremely high scorer on the ASVAB would likely make an absolutely horrible cook if he were forced into it - but be a success as an electronics technician. (The above doesn't apply if he were actually motivated to be a cook- then he'd probably be a better then average one.) Someone with a low ASVAB will not make it through ET school, but that's OK. The military can find a job for a low scorer that needs to be done. For something that doesn't exist and cannot be measured, IQ very useful.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/assault/videotaped-baltimore-street-beating-879234
Watch the video above and then give us an idea of a simple 'rule of thumb' someone can give a child to help him (or her) avoid this sort of situation.
Avoid large groups of young people in front of court houses, perhaps?
The ASVAB is a vocational aptitude test, not an IQ test. So, you don't have any idea what you are talking about to a factor of several.
Try again.
Seven Machos said...
The ASVAB is a vocational aptitude test, not an IQ test. So, you don't have any idea what you are talking about to a factor of several.
Try again.
*******************
Yep, there are a whole bunch of articles explaining that. Nonetheless, if you poorly on an "IQ Test" chances are, you're going to do poorly on the ASVAB. Math is math, whether on an IQ Test, SAT, or ASVAB. You may not be measuring IQ direectly, but you're going to get a real good idea of someone's IQ by looking at various sections of the ASVAB.
Just because it's labeled to do one thing doesn't mean it cannnot doing another. A hammer is designed to drive a nail- it can also crack a nut.
There was one section of the GCT back when I took it that I imagine is still on the ASVAB. Tool recognition. That section probablt doesn't relate to IQ as directly as others. City kids tended to real poorly on that section compared to country kids.
Dude -- I told you IQ is a figment of your imagination. Your argument, such as it was, was that IQ exists because the military uses the ASVAB effectively, and the ASVAB tests IQ. I told you, and you agreed, that the ASVAB makes no claim to test IQ.
Therefore, by your own admission, the test you say demonstrates IQ cannot demonstrate IQ, because it is not a test of IQ.
People are smarter and dumber. There is no smartness number related to this fact. The military doesn't test it. Nobody tests it. It doesn't exist.
Now post another 1000 words that don't connect anything to anything else.
NRO is so boring and PC now. I don't know if I agree with the Derb piece. But Radio Derb was great. The best NR writers have now all been fired basically: Sailer, Brimelow, Derb. Steyn is ok. The rest are PC BUsh Republicans who only care about taxes (globalists). Sailer's taki pieces are more intresting than Derb's. NRO now is like RNC.com. Yawn.
Derb should've learned long ago: noticing things is evil. Don't notice news NPR doesn't report. Don't write about the hate crimes that have come about since the Trayvon thing to myraid innocent euros across America. Good people don't talk about such things. Good people pretend that innocent blacks are more in danger of attack from random whites than vice versa.
Post a Comment