tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post7851892548863314542..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: The Question Is Etiquette, Not "Racism"Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-13512237591804589992013-08-15T20:59:05.008-05:002013-08-15T20:59:05.008-05:00backyard, now that I understand better where you&#...backyard, now that I understand better where you're coming from, every question you raise about race is going to get the same answer from me. It will be some variation of this:<br /><br />1. People who inherit reduced capacities for achievement, for whatever reason, are entitled to whatever help the rest of us can reasonably give them, in the same way and for the same reasons as people who inherit a congenital disease or birth defect. So, if there are differences we can fairly call "racial," then the disadvantaged race(s) are entitled to that help.<br /><br />2. The justification for this is not just social utility, nor is that the only relevant measure. True, we don't want to overlook any world-changing geniuses, and we want to maximize everyone's potential contributions to society. But the principal goal is to maximize each person's capacity to put whatever talents and qualities s/he has toward making a decent and fulfilling life for him/herself and his/her family.<br /><br />3. We should use the best, most cost-effective means to achieve these goals, and should tax and spend toward them appropriately in light of other national priorities. What those means and those dollar amounts are will vary depending on the particular people, groups, conditions, or interventions we're talking about, and is subject to continual adjustment as we experiment to see what's really going on and what works.<br /><br />4. Although I would call the principles I've just stated "liberal" or "progressive," I don't speak for anyone else and can't tell you precisely how representative they are, let alone what specific answer someone else would give on some specific case in point. The best way to find out what people on the left generally think is to read around in the various magazines and other forums where they tend to publish their views.<br /><br />Okay? Hope so, because it's the best I can do.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-17456777063604750712013-08-15T17:12:47.445-05:002013-08-15T17:12:47.445-05:00Jeff,
Even by prog estimates (Center for American...Jeff,<br /><br />Even by prog estimates (Center for American Progress), pre-college spending tends to be very close between whites and NAMs and at the very top worldwide. But the US doesn't have "inadequate outcomes" when one accounts for race. On the PISA, white students in the US outscore white students worldwide. US Asians outscore world Asians. US Hispanics far outscore Mexicans. US blacks outscore several countries, but no black countries bother with the PISA. Every person who neglects to mention this is lying by omission. If every wealthy country goes Asian white black and country scores go Asian white black, and the US goes Asian white black, then the countries with the most NAMs should be expected to score lower. The Richwine piece lays this out, but several others have toyed with the data and produced similar results.<br /><br />Does it affect your worldview at all that trailer-living whites get higher SAT scores than blacks? Would it matter if you learned that blacks actually do MORE SAT prep than whites?<br /><br />When do progs consider diminishing returns in their quest for equality? If gov is going to shunt tax dollars to education, it doesn't make sense to spend huge dollars chasing tiny gains among retarded children who can't contribute much anyway. Spending more on quickly advancing bright students makes more sense because they're the ones who are going to dream up and produce new tech, from which ALL material gain for everyone is produced.backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-44824635521069493262013-08-15T10:52:38.192-05:002013-08-15T10:52:38.192-05:00As I said, don't get me started on school fund...As I said, don't get me started on school funding. Seriously. It's too big a topic for a thread that nobody else is reading anymore. I expect we'll have other chances.<br /><br />However, I do notice, just on that story you link to about the OECD report, that there's an apples-to-oranges comparison going on. The US leads in total expenditure IF you include its famously expensive colleges with their concert halls and lacrosse teams and four-star housing complexes. But the data showing inadequate outcomes are based on tests of 10- and 15-year olds. What happens when you compare just "core" educational spending (not "ancillary") and limit the comparison to K-8 or K-12? I don't know, but you're welcome to go muck around in the data and get back to me on that if you like. I'm pretty confident the US won't be #1 anymore.<br /><br />I can't give you a dollar amount that should be spent on any given service, not without lots more study and not outside the context of a discussion of national priorities generally. But can you? For instance, we currently spend money, some of it taken from taxpayers at gunpoint, helping children with Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, autism and other such disorders. The kids in question inherited these conditions, or at any rate did not bring them on themselves, and the expenses they entail can be quite high. Yet in many cases, no amount of money is going to close the IQ or achievement gap between those children and others not thus disadvantaged. It's impossible in principle. So, what's the correct amount for the public / taxpayers / government to spend on children with congenital disorders and the families responsible for their care? If the answer is anything higher than zero, how do you justify that?<br /><br />Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-650635817915295622013-08-14T23:33:21.571-05:002013-08-14T23:33:21.571-05:00And don't get me started on school funding; pe...<i>And don't get me started on school funding; people who support America's vast inequalities in that area have no credibility to talk about what can or can't be achieved through better policies.</i><br /><br />The per pupil spending difference between whites and NAMs is approx. zero. Here's Richwine from 2011 discussing <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/the-myth-of-racial-disparities-in-public-school-funding" rel="nofollow">studies that show white spending</a> as slightly less and WA-PO on DC <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-06/news/36792859_1_private-schools-charter-schools-public-schools" rel="nofollow">school spending</a>.<br /><br />But the idea that money is a key factor in racial disparities doesn't make sense when the poorest whites outscore the <a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm" rel="nofollow">wealthiest</a> blacks. As in, the wealthiest quintile of black SAT takers gets lower scores than the poorest quintile of white. Kids like Malia and Sasha are generally outscored by whites who live in trailers. White kids on food stamps test better than black kids who aren't.<br /><br />The US spends more than just about any country on education. Probably everything you've been told about this topic disagrees with boring gov <a href="http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3496875" rel="nofollow">stats</a>.<br /><br />Since the US spends so much and already diverts so much more to low IQ kids, how much more do you think it should spend? backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-37690159444248647862013-08-14T17:32:47.652-05:002013-08-14T17:32:47.652-05:00backyard, stick to the thread if you want replies,...backyard, stick to the thread if you want replies, I didn't see this earlier.<br /><br />I'm talking about a bunch of cultural, historical and environmental factors, no one of which is the magic key. The big differences are between people who have access to most or all of them versus people who have access to few or none.<br /><br />Your theory is that differences in achievement "can't be equalized" because they've evolved, presumably over tens of thousands of years (?). OK, then we're talking about a kind of congenital disease or, if you prefer, congenital disability (i.e. an inherited impairment in competitive ability). I would want to see resources put toward this for the same reason I want public resources devoted to people with developmental disabilities, birth defects and inherited diseases of the kinds already so classified: because a good society takes the best care it can of those most in need, particularly when the need arises from no fault of their own.<br /><br />As to the hopelessness of better outcomes, you can start with the Hart-Risley longitudinal study, which showed environmental effects emerging in cognitive development already by age 3 and persisting thereafter into school achievement. Again, that study was measuring only one of many factors, which suggests that the cumulative effect of many inputs would be even greater. And don't get me started on school funding; people who support America's vast inequalities in that area have no credibility to talk about what can or can't be achieved through better policies.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-46228858101127296992013-08-13T22:26:03.493-05:002013-08-13T22:26:03.493-05:00If, beyond all this, disadvantages are also being ...<i>If, beyond all this, disadvantages are also being carried through the generations genetically, then absolutely I want that addressed too -- but as I've said, my view of what that fact would entail will not give libertarians any comfort.</i><br /><br />Does this mean that you'd still want to maintain an affirmative action and disparate impact regime that involves trying to forcefully balance outcomes between WCMs and NAMs but not between Jews and gentiles? <br /><br /><i>You'd essentially be saying that large numbers of people have at least a mild congenital disease, and if there's any group that is most deserving of help, concern and subsidies from the larger society, it's people with congenital diseases.</i><br /><br />Distribution of IQ is normal. What IQ do you consider diseased?<br /><br /><i>Genetic theories of achievement as we typically hear them don't serve a constructive purpose, because they're transparently offered as excuses for refusing public and government-funded efforts instead of redoubling them, as one could equally well argue.</i><br /><br />The key argument of evolution denying progs is that racial differences in IQ are the result of different levels of resources going to different races. Therefore, what is required to equalize outcomes of different groups is tax-n-spend to equalize resource use between different races. If progs accepted evolution, what could they possibly argue is going to equalize inter-race IQs? Any great environmental alteration used to help the low IQ would help everyone. Do you recommend the Sirens of Titan? Special Ed is monstrously expensive, with costs rising and returns lowering with stupider students. Since resources are limited and the US already spends more per pupil than <b>anywhere in the world</b>, how much do you want to slow the development of intelligent students in the interest of equalizing outcomes that can't be equalized? Is tilting at windmills to equalize IQs so important that we should badly slow the introduction of experimental science to smart children? That sounds retarded.<br /><br />Again, IQ differences show up in pre-Ks. What grand historical force is giving tiny children of different races different mentors that lead to different early and persistent IQs?<br /><br />Reading to children is supposed to be a great boon? Where are you hearing this? The universally cheesy studies I've seen don't show large gains. They show small, tenuous, gains when the adults take specific steps.backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-45082753102020104262013-08-13T20:31:00.828-05:002013-08-13T20:31:00.828-05:00P.S. My goal is also a race-neutral meritocracy. W...P.S. My goal is also a race-neutral meritocracy. We're debating what stands in the way of that.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-1260599134328724762013-08-13T20:29:49.168-05:002013-08-13T20:29:49.168-05:00Again, backyard, I'm all for doing what will a...Again, backyard, I'm all for doing what will actually help people overcome disadvantages. But this is a lot harder than you make it out to be, way beyond watching some webcam videos (although, heck, that could maybe be one small part of the answer). First, the non-genetic factors I've mentioned are not just childrearing. No matter how you raise a child, you can't magically create a far-flung, supportive network for that child full of good role models and lots of know-how about making one's way in the world. Second, there are factors linked to lowered IQ that are clearly environmental but not under parents' control -- things like toxins in the environment, the availability of high-quality prenatal and neonatal care, quality child care for parents too poor to stay at home all the time, school lunch and after-school activity programs, and so on. The left, by and large, has supported measures to improve these conditions, while the right has generally opposed them, often with the libertarian argument that (say) a program to remove leaded paint from urban buildings amounts to "pointing guns" at the landlords or taxpayers on whom the immediate burden falls. At any rate, you're not going to convince anybody that "progs" are the obstacle to better things happening in those areas, because that's obvious nonsense.<br /><br />And then even where the matter is arguably under parents' control, changes are difficult. I have a friend who works for a nonprofit organization promoting literacy on the South Side of Chicago. This involves helping adults learn to read when that wasn't ensured for them in childhood, as it should have been -- but also, more broadly, intervening to promote a literacy-oriented culture within families: increasing interest in books and helping people understand the importance of things like reading to their children (a well-attested factor in cognitive development). These measures can work, but they take intensive efforts, which are badly underfunded in this country because they're mostly dependent on philanthropy. Any <i>public</i> commitment to such projects brings on the aforesaid righty hysteria about guns being pointed. And if you try to answer that by saying, well, but this is what a wise and just society does, both to serve its own long-term interests and by way of repairing damage done by generations of discrimination and bad policies, you get further hysteria about how you're attacking and stigmatizing "WCMs."<br /><br />If, beyond all this, disadvantages are <i>also</i> being carried through the generations genetically, then absolutely I want that addressed too -- but as I've said, my view of what that fact would entail will not give libertarians any comfort. You'd essentially be saying that large numbers of people have at least a mild congenital disease, and if there's any group that is <i>most</i> deserving of help, concern and subsidies from the larger society, it's people with congenital diseases. Genetic theories of achievement as we typically hear them don't serve a constructive purpose, because they're transparently offered as excuses for <i>refusing</i> public and government-funded efforts instead of redoubling them, as one could equally well argue. If, instead of excuse-making, you and your geneticist pals could filter out the Social Darwinism and join in a good-faith discussion of what America should do for citizens, especially children, who <i>by your own account</i> are congenitally disadvantaged, I suspect you'd get a lot less resistance from the all-powerful progs.<br />Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16511179052040108852013-08-13T15:55:58.307-05:002013-08-13T15:55:58.307-05:00Jeff,
I don't think that you're hearing m...Jeff,<br /><br />I don't think that you're hearing me on early IQ differences. They show up in young children. As in before school. What are you claiming that shadowy social/cultural factors are doing among children to cause the well known racial differences in IQ before kindergarten? It's childrearing that we're discussing, and it's criminal for anti-evolution progs not to focus on the Jewish version that they KNOW can cause a 25 point rise in blacks. Look, web cams are almost free, there have to be Jews who are willing to show the world how to cause a world-improving IQ raise in young children. Seriously, do you not realize the importance of this? If Jewish childrearing is as superior as you claim, then it could transform the world for the good in one generation. Technical problems would topple. Poverty would end.<br /><br /><i>Unfortunately that alone is not going to get you very close to your goal, because I don't represent or speak for the sources of power in this country.</i><br /><br />Especially because my goal is a race-neutral meritocracy. I don't believe that Jews should be targeted by progs the way that WCMs have been. But progs (and a giant proportion of Jews are progs) insist on maintaining this wretched regime of affirmative action/disparate impact, and WCMs are paying attention. The internet makes communication and reality checking possible. backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-33733949050990113972013-08-13T11:00:48.470-05:002013-08-13T11:00:48.470-05:00You know, backyard, there's hand-waving and th...You know, backyard, there's hand-waving and there's hand-waving. You can wave your hands to distract people from the lack of evidence for something and make it sound like there's something there when there isn't. I've certainly seen that done. But if I toss out a phrase like "somewhere west of the Rockies," thus hand-waving in that general direction, it doesn't mean there isn't actually any territory west of the Rockies. It means I don't have a map in front of me at the moment. <br /><br />In the case at hand, there is massive evidence of cultural-historical distortions in the development of various communities over the past several generations and centuries. The world did not come into being in 1965. I believe child-raising practices are, for sure, a key way that the resulting differences are transmitted, but I think the mechanisms also include the networks and role models people have available to them, the expectations of the societies (both micro- and macro-) that they belong to, and basically the environments around them broadly understood, which is why I wouldn't reduce everything to that single term. I also wouldn't say that Jewish parents have "cracked the code," because it implies that there's some straightforward method you can consciously learn and implement. I think it's more inchoate and not all under people's control (you can't decide, for instance, to be "naturally" part of larger networks that encourage or discourage certain life directions), and that all this is why it's harder than you suppose for other groups to reverse-engineer the most effective approaches.<br /><br />Because I think -- though not all "progs" would agree -- that racial classifications are overly rigid and arbitrary compared to the realities they're meant to describe, I'm in favor of calibrating whatever guidelines we follow for maximum effectiveness in achieving their purposes. I have not studied whether classifying "gentiles" or "WCMs" as disadvantaged groups would serve any such worthy purpose. I'm inclined to doubt it, because these groups were not historically held down the way others were. But if it did -- as opposed to, for instance, invidiously targeting Jews for renewed oppression -- I suppose I could be persuaded. Unfortunately that alone is not going to get you very close to your goal, because I don't represent or speak for the sources of power in this country. Neither do "progs" in general, contrary to what you think. George Soros by himself can't finance a whole new set of national priorities. As we've seen, even a dedicated, hard-core Kenyan Marxist Muslim Chicago Thug Atheist president can't move the ball very far. Big things change when Big Money, the corporate-industrial-political complex as a whole, gets behind something. You're wasting your time debating those of us in the faculty lounge; the big decisions are made on another floor.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54079808279693294472013-08-13T02:43:34.250-05:002013-08-13T02:43:34.250-05:00Jeff,
It seems to me that you haven't read an...Jeff,<br /><br />It seems to me that you haven't read anything on the subject. The APA claims that IQ is to a great degree a matter of genes. I don't think you've seen any scientific evidence that Jewish child raising tactics lead to elevated IQs. And when you talk about "cultural historical factors" in comparison to child raising you're just hand waving. IQ differences show up pretty early in development, with the obsessed-about race differences in tow. People don't wait until college (where they decide to learn/study like Asians or Jews) to find out their IQs. Whatever cultural advantages in raising IQ are conferred by being Ashkenazi (not Sephardic, etc.) happen early, when "child raising" is the proper term.<br /><br />Should Jew/gentile be on the uniform guidelines, considering the massive advantage that Jews have?backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11983830448961165812013-08-12T11:07:29.388-05:002013-08-12T11:07:29.388-05:00CSH, I don't know either how widespread, or ev...CSH, I don't know either how widespread, or evenly distributed, is the willingness to invest in the next generation over unrealistic dreams for oneself. I did see a report a few days ago about a study that found that lottery tickets are mostly sold to the poor, until the jackpot reaches a certain astronomical size, and then pretty much everyone starts playing. If buying lottery tickets is a proxy for thinking like that handyman, then this result might further suggest that you're right about this kind of thinking as a significant factor in cross-generational underachievement. Or maybe it only tells us who plays the lottery.<br /><br />Which leads me to BYF. One thing I'm gathering here, backyard, is that you're an enthusiastic autodidact in these areas. For all I know, you've got four or five advanced degrees in subatomic particle physics, but you're not a trained social scientist and neither am I. I am, however, trained in studies involving cultural questions, and one thing that advanced training helpfully does, for the non-arrogant, is alert them to how much they don't yet know, and instill some respect for the specialists and the disciplines that do study those things carefully. Assuming the studies you ask for aren't held under lock and key by the Elders of Zion, I can tell you that the following are almost certainly true: (a) there are studies, yes, that would throw at least some light on the questions we're debating; but (b) none of them would fully and finally answer any of our questions, because (c) "studies" aren't magical tokens of knowledge you can string together like beads, they exist within large, complicated ongoing conversations involving many overlapping questions at once, and (d) you need some expertise to interpret and critically evaluate them, which is best done from within those conversations and within the communities of scholars and scientists who conduct the studies. Amateurs like ourselves who wanted to know the state of the science on any given question would have a fair amount of work ahead just to develop a good layman's knowledge of the topic. It's not just a matter of going and finding a couple of links, interesting as that is to do sometimes for our limited purposes here.<br /><br />Actually, what are our purposes here? I started reading Plain Blog because it's a point of access, curated by a trained expert, to one of those scientific discussions -- specifically the one among political scientists about what drives political events and decision-making within party structures and "party-aligned groups" and the like. I'm interested in this and am aware that I need help and guidance understanding it. Our host also helpfully opines on matters tangential to his academic specialty, and invites us to do the same, but you'll notice that he often qualifies these comments with acknowledgements of the limits of his expertise. That's what real scientists and the best academics do. If anything, I've been remiss about following his good example, because I've speculated more freely on some of the questions you raise than I really should given the aforesaid caveats.<br /><br />On the issue of genetic bases for achievement, look, I doubt that that's nearly as significant as cultural-historical factors (broadly understood in the ways I've suggested, not reduced as you do to formulaic phrases like "Jewish parenting" and "cracking the code"). But I could be proven wrong. If I'm not a social scientist, I'm even less a molecular biologist. I think, though, that where you and I also differ is that I don't see obvious policy implications <i>even if you're right.</i> The directions for policy would still be another whole big controversy in itself. As I've said, proof that some people were genetically disadvantaged would, to me, be an argument for <i>intensifying</i> social and political efforts to help those people. Libertarians would not agree, so we'd still be arguing, wouldn't we?<br /><br />Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-51192992405925672122013-08-12T08:14:56.007-05:002013-08-12T08:14:56.007-05:00Even if Ta-Nehisi is a mediocrity among bloggers, ...Even if Ta-Nehisi is a mediocrity among bloggers, his existence in that category (national blogger) implies his IQ is probably above 100 if he's average among that group. If he were the offspring of Ashkenazim with that profile, there would be nothing particularly noteworthy about him. As it is, there's only something noteworthy if you think he's playing with a bad genetic hand.<br /><br />Oh, and to your question of why the Ashkenazim don't make more efforts to "impose" their parenting style on other cultures? Well, the 'stick' method of that would go over like a lead zeppelin, as it would sound like so much Michelle-Obama-thinks-you-should-eat-more-kale. The alternative would be the 'carrot' method, create incentives for those communities to up their games, in exchange for opportunity down the road.<br /><br />Perhaps you have heard of such policies?CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-80120042571394652752013-08-12T07:50:05.190-05:002013-08-12T07:50:05.190-05:00CSH
TNC is a so-so blogger who gets points for be...CSH<br /><br />TNC is a so-so blogger who gets points for being black. I don't know why you keep bringing him up.backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-88248379129511097292013-08-12T07:37:57.175-05:002013-08-12T07:37:57.175-05:00Jeff,
Where are these studies comparing children ...Jeff,<br /><br />Where are these studies comparing children raised Jewishly with children raised WCM-style that account for genes and show a 10+ point IQ advantage for the Jewishly raised? The twin studies I know of show little long term IQ effect of environment.<br /><br />If progs are serious that human brains quit evolving 30,000 years ago and that Jewish parenting can cause IQ 85 blacks to become IQ 110 blacks, then every enlightened prog who doesn't sell this idea daily is really remiss. This is the most important social science finding EVER. That Obama has mumbled a few times about staying in school is a giant problem. You're saying that Jews have cracked the high IQ code, yet even though they dominate gov bureaucracy, media, Hollywood, and academe, they say approx. nothing. Is it possible that Jews want to maintain their absurd advantages over WCMs due to tribal instincts?backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40071546963920438392013-08-12T07:28:59.426-05:002013-08-12T07:28:59.426-05:00I think its declasse to insert oneself into such a...I think its declasse to insert oneself into such a conversation, but I believe Jeff omitted one important, non-genetic basis for the persistence of such (undesirable) differences: human nature.<br /><br />I probably mentioned a while ago that Rick Reilly, formerly ensconced in the lucrative back page of Sports Illustrated, had as a final column a "feel-good" piece about a guy who worked as a handyman/general laborer with the Ohio State football team, late 40s, high-school dropout, history of significant drug use, probably NAM (though that doesn't matter), just got his GED (Yeah!). The most relevant detail: <i>he wanted to be a psychiatrist</i>.<br /><br />Is there something unusual about that last data point (unusual to whichever was that guy's cultural group)? Or is it a human universal that everyone, no matter how much they have f'ed up their circumstances, nevertheless imagines and dreams great things for themselves? Don't we, as conservatives, inherently support such aspirations - in general?<br /><br />But in order to cross the cultural barrier from observed IQ scores one standard deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above, don't we first need the current generation to accept their fate, to come to terms with their issues, to accept that their lives will probably remain unfulfilled, and to invest their hope in the next generation? Many do. But many others retain the dream of becoming a psychiatrist, which surely has a dampening effect on acknowledging that there is a problem.<br /><br />Look, I'm not an expert on this stuff, I don't know the share of people who selflessly want something better for the next generation and what percent who normalize their circumstances at the expense of group improvement. <br /><br />Returning once more to a meme, while Ta-Nehisi's dad should have done better for himself (coming from the back of the Ryder truck), he did very well by his family, emphasizing - in Ta-Nehisi's account - the value of reading, books, scholarship, all the stuff that are apparently prestige traits of the Ashkenazim. Ta-Nehisi's dad seemed to do okay with that approach!<br /><br />In a nutshell, we're trying to understand why more NAM's (who have underachieved) don't follow Ta-Nehisi's dad's approach and rather persist in self-delusions such as a near-50 recent GED perceiving himself a psychiatrist-in-the-making. <br /><br />For one thing, its an unfair comparison to struggling NAMs: the child of successful Ashkenazim isn't reliant on his parents coming to terms with their underachieving lives in wanting something better for him; the system is pretty much working fine as it is.<br /><br />For a second, we don't need genes to explain a guy who failed not coming to terms with it and perceiving his circumstances to be "psychiatrist"-worthy (and thus not recognizing - as Ta-Nehisi's dad apparently did - that something very different has to happen with the kids).CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-3825289206406935642013-08-12T00:43:56.168-05:002013-08-12T00:43:56.168-05:00Big-city maYor, I mean. Not that I had anyone part...Big-city maYor, I mean. Not that I had anyone particular in mind.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-76293529879136212902013-08-12T00:40:41.826-05:002013-08-12T00:40:41.826-05:00Fine, I'm all for that kind of reverse enginee...Fine, I'm all for that kind of reverse engineering. Although the president is going to be careful how he phrases it, I think this is more or less what he's calling for too when he exhorts black fathers to pay attention to their kids and black kids to pay attention in school. I agree that raising average capabilities, whether we measure this in IQ points of whatever, would go a long way toward solving a lot of problems.<br /><br />The caveats are that these are complex issues:<br /><br />> Cultures develop over generations and are difficult to change abruptly. Efforts to do so -- like Mao's or Pol Pot's, for instance -- tend to come to grief, and anyway involve levels of statist regimentation that not even progressives can support.<br /><br />> Cultures, communities and families are extremely complex systems, and changing anything about them necessarily risks throwing something else out of whack. Unintended consequences, in other words.<br /><br />> Any intervention will be controversial. If, for instance, some kids' life chances are suffering for want of better eating and drinking habits, and a big-city major tries to address this with, say, a ban on selling big sodas, he gets an earful from people like you who accuse him of pointing guns at soda drinkers. This creates an incentive to do nothing at all.<br /><br />> It's not always clear what the right direction is. As I mentioned the other day, for instance, people can do better in school, and especially in college, by following both (stereotypically) "Asian" and "Jewish" learning styles: hyperdiscipline and extreme deference to teachers, on the one hand, <i>and</i> vigorous questioning and skepticism toward received authorities on the other. But these contradict each other, so it's not clear how we could encourage both (or encourage either one without undercutting the other).<br /><br />If we can see our way past these issues to something that works, though, yeah, let's do it.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-21987539102736745802013-08-11T22:33:58.806-05:002013-08-11T22:33:58.806-05:00How are you rating the prog win/loss record over t...<i>How are you rating the prog win/loss record over the last generation?</i><br /><br />It has marginally improved in the past few years, but from about 1980 to 2010 it was mostly a story of retrenchment, deregulation, the paring back of previous liberal victories (civil-rights reforms, Warren Court decisions, etc.), the rise of right-wing lobbies and of groups like the Federalist Society, and a necessary diversion of progressive energies from seeking new horizons to limiting the damage. Not a pretty story, overall.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-80767222353582170102013-08-11T22:28:43.065-05:002013-08-11T22:28:43.065-05:00Cultural explanations for Jewish and Asian achieve...Cultural explanations for Jewish and Asian achievements are not hard to come by. Most of it comes down to performance in school, a very specific kind of activity for which talents can be cultivated in families and communities, especially when we start early in life. A cultural heritage focused on taking one's cues from intellectual authority figures (teachers and preachers) can help. So does respect for and interest in books, and a tradition that favors argument and position-taking and asserting ideas, which Jewish communities have cultivated over generations. There were also family and community traditions, going back to specific historical circumstances of past centuries, that smoothed the way for ambitious young Jewish people into finance- and commerce-related careers, which for obvious reasons are where the money is to be made. People tend to cluster in the professions of their parents or relatives, which is why I became a teacher, John McCain became a Navy officer, and someone descended from a London banking or shipping family will be more likely to show up in a Wall Street job today.<br /><br />Further, it helps that if you aren't "like" WCMs (or whatever the dominant group is), you're not too different either. Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe were discriminated against at one time, but have benefited from increasing secularization over the past century, which reduced the stigma of non-Christianity, and from being white-skinned and mostly European, which made the barriers to their entry into the dominant institutions and professions somewhat lower than it's been for other groups. Add all this up, and there's just no mystery left that calls for genetic explanations.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-19155993792034902472013-08-11T22:19:31.302-05:002013-08-11T22:19:31.302-05:00Jeff,
How are you rating the prog win/loss recor...Jeff, <br /><br />How are you rating the prog win/loss record over the last generation?backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-43438743546903965962013-08-11T22:08:40.492-05:002013-08-11T22:08:40.492-05:00How have Jews become so rich and powerful relative...How have Jews become so rich and powerful relative to WCMs? If its just assumed a priori that there CAN NOT be genetic reasons why WCMs tend to do better than Hispanics and blacks (as is the global, not US, reality) then we should expect WCMs to outperform Jews in a majority Christian country. The prog contention is that WCMs have done an amazing job of keeping down those not like them, so we should expect Jews to be poorer than WCMs. But against all odds, just as in Canada, Jews are dominating WCMs. If it's just totally impossible that Ashkenazi are genetically smarter on average than WCMs, then what are they doing to beat majority WCMs in competition for wealth and the best positions? PEZ? Some more subtle tribalism? Super-secret studying techniques? How do they carry this advantage to other countries? How does it continue over centuries? Are WCMs just too lazy? <br /><br />The prog contention is that races don't have any substantial genetic differences. So any differences in outcome between groups have to be the result of cultural factors. So WCMs have to explain how it is that they are wealthier than NAMs without resorting to evolved differences. According to prog logic then, Jews should have to explain how it is that they are beating the WCMs who have no problem with blacks or Hispanics (but can't seem to keep down the Asians.) backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-71223372704905899772013-08-11T20:14:40.280-05:002013-08-11T20:14:40.280-05:00You don't need a Panzer brigade to kill a mosq...You don't need a Panzer brigade to kill a mosquito, and you don't need crypto-Nazi race theories to argue for changes in disparate-impact law, if that's what this is finally all about. In fact some such changes have already happened. For all the talk of "progs" and their supposed hegemony, people who actually call themselves progressives have been losing more political fights than they've been winning over the past generation or so.<br /><br />As to this notion that logical consistency would require a crackdown on Jewish over-representation, that's high school debate-team sophistry. Progressive policies aim to enhance life chances for people who have had these unfairly curtailed, usually but not only by widespread bias and a legacy of oppressive policies. People who are already doing well, for whatever reason, don't need that help, and there's nothing inconsistent about focusing on those who do.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-22612499566831102792013-08-11T19:48:03.870-05:002013-08-11T19:48:03.870-05:00Jeff and The Bitter Fig,
It also includes very hi...Jeff and The Bitter Fig,<br /><br />It also includes very high overrepresentation in gov bureaucracy, academe, law, medicine, etc.<br /><br />The test that progs use to assert WCM dominance now is simply overrepresentation in positions of wealth and power relative to population size. It's stated in relation to women, blacks, Hispanics, and People of Color (even though Asians make PoC into a goofy grouping.) And it is literally what leads to disparate impact lawsuits and a wealth of crazy anti-WCM hiring policies, supposedly all in the interest of egalitarianism. It's also the source of constant articles and studies that lambaste WCMs for shadowy implicit bias or "legacy of racism." And whenever someone like the Wise Latina is placed somewhere, progs all shout to the rafters that society has made a blow against WCM hegemony. <br /><br />The test that progs hold WCMs to is overrepresentation; Jews should be held to the same test by honest progs. If WCMs are doing something to keep down non-WCMs, then Jews should be DOWN, but they're not, they are way UP. They eclipse WCMs in almost every field relative to population. The story progs are telling doesn't make sense.<br /><br />Supposedly, America wouldn't be considered a broken and racist mess if blacks and Hispanics had similar life outcomes to whites. If different life outcomes are enough to indict society and WCMs, then what does it say about society that Jews are so much better off than WCMs? If it makes sense to use gov violence and coercion to try to equalize outcomes between WCMs and NAMs, then it should also be done between Jews and gentiles. backyardfoundrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18537156611643238382013-08-11T14:24:45.837-05:002013-08-11T14:24:45.837-05:00Pretty much with Jeff.
First, however important p...Pretty much with Jeff.<br /><br />First, however important pundits and businessmen are, Congress makes the laws, the President enforces them, and the Supreme Court evaluates them. Here Whiteness, Maleness, and Christian-ness are all the most numerous, as well as generally statistically overrepresented. In a democracy or republic, those numbers matter a lot.<br /><br />For Forbes 400, non-Jews still outnumber Jews. For the (subjective as heck) Atlantic 50 pundits list, it's split 50/50 on Jewishness, but overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. But how powerful is that? Well, 50% Jewish pundits and about a third top businessmen can't get more than 6.2% of Congress Jewish or a Jewish President.<br /><br />If you want to look at some sort of power-to-size ratio, sure. For national political power, Jewishness has a very high, quite possibly the highest power-to-size ratio. However, Whites, Christians, and Men all have greater-than-one ratios, more power than their size would indicate.<br /><br />To say that anyone has dominance over WCM just is flat out ridiculous, given absolute numerical superiority, and statistical overrepresentation of whites, Christians, and men.<br /><br />For national government, the groups at the back end of the ratios are women and those without religion. When including pundits and rich folks, the groups which drop out dramatically in terms of power are Black and Hispanic people.<br /><br />Women, Nones, Blacks, and Hispanics. Not WCM.The Bitter Fignoreply@blogger.com