The systematic study of intelligence if fraught, dangerous, since everyone instantly thinks, “Race. Blacks. I will lose my job and live in a tent on the sidewalk if I think about this.” The concern is that study might reveal differences between groups. Oh God. So: Should we study it or not?
Black IQs matter:
The panic arises only regarding blacks. Suggesting that Jews are smarter than other whites, which perhaps most believe, or that East Asians are smarter than whites, as seems to be the case, does not greatly roil the waters. Hispanics don’t seem to matter. Blacks do.
Now, if blacks are less bright than whites, as many quietly believe, we have one situation. If they are not less bright, we have another. If blacks seldom become software engineers because they can’t, what then? White European society seems to accept the apparent superiority of Jews and East Asians, and the consequent differences in prosperity, without dangerous levels of resentment. The resentment of, and by, blacks is intense and explosive.
The left’s fantasy prevails in the political world, even though they know it’s false:
Here, politics enter. Liberals insist that no racial differences exist. But they do not seem to believe it. If they did, they would favor a massive and careful regime of testing to prove their point. Instead, they strenuously resist investigation Why, other than fear of likely results?
Some facts, unwoke but demonstrable: Both intelligence and behavior are largely determined by genetics. Any dog breeder will tell you that Border Collies are smarter than beagles. They learn faster and learn things of greater complexity. He will further tell you that dogs can be bred for higher intelligence by mating unusually smart dogs with other unusually smart dogs. And he will tell you that traits such as protectiveness and aggressiveness are in the breeds and that these traits can be changed up or down by selective breeding. This mutability appears all through the mammals. Any determined teenager can breed mice to be better or worse at running mazes.
Now, subspecies. Collies and pit bulls are subspecies of dog, in simple terms meaning that they are both dogs but, a bit more biologically, that they can breed with each other. Similarly, Africans, Chinese, and Norwegians are members of subspecies of Homo sapiens, for exactly the same reasons.
The woke are usually ardent of Darwinian evolution, probably because it is a doctrine useful against evangelical Christianity … A foundational idea of orthodox Darwinity is that if a species is divided into separated populations so that they cannot interbreed (if, for example, an isthmus joining two continents sinks beneath the waves), they will over time evolve into distinct subspecies with distinct characteristics. The woke happily accept this principle when useful against Creationism. If it is pointed out that it works identically with separated populations of people, such as Africans, the Chinese, and Norwegians among others, a silence falls.
This is what is called an “oops! moment.” The woke sense where things are going.
Their usual response is to insist that race doesn’t exist (in which case racism presumably doesn’t either, but we will not complicate things), that it is a “social construct” with no scientific meaning. Most of the woke are graduates in the liberal arts with almost no familiarity with the sciences or mathematics which makes scientifically silly beliefs palatable. …
Another and desperate attempt to deny the existence of race is to point out that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is 98.5 percent identical (or some such number). … This is then used to urge that minor genetic differences don’t amount to anything. Actually of course it shows that minor differences have profound consequences. I don’t know your dating habits, but the difference between Bongo the Chimp and Marilyn Monroe seem at least noticeable.
Now, intelligence. Is there any reason why races might differ?
At this point the woke try to eliminate the question rather than answer it. They will assert that intelligence doesn’t exist, that it is a social construct. They do not believe this except when talking about race. They will say in casual conversation, “Fred, I want to get you together with Mary, she’s a biochemist at NIH, and really smart.” They do not say, “Wow! Is Mary ever socially constructed.” At least, not in reference to mental qualities.
But put five people of IQ 170 and five of IQ70 in a room and see how long it takes you to tell one from the other. About three seconds. The difference will be stark. And people autodetect intelligence. People of IQ 90 tend to associate with others of that IQ. Those of 150 do the same. A woman once said, “In Washington, you assume that everyone is in the 99th percentile.” No, but she was, so people she knew were. This is called “cognitive stratification.”
Why would one race evolve higher intelligence than another? In terms of strict evolutionary piety, a group under more environmental stress than another will be selected for its ability to figure out solutions — i.e., for intelligence. Proponents of IQ argue that life in cold regions requires more planning, thought, and ingenuity than life in tropical regions where fruit hangs low. …
That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it:
Here we come to the vexed matter of IQ. It is one that can lead to bar fights. …
Who studies IQ? At the top of the analytical hill we have psychometrists, usually highly intelligent (pardon the word) and well trained statisticians. They are careful, well aware of pitfalls in psychological measurement, and doing their best, which is usually quite good, to determine the truth. They are accused of course of racism for getting the wrong answer. Interestingly, though overwhelmingly white, they rank intelligence from high to low as Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians, whites, Latinos, blacks. The findings of psychometrists track observable outcomes over statistically significant groups.
A reasonable question about IQ is whether it measures what it is supposed to measure: intelligence. This mystery attracts much sophistry from people who seem to illustrate the principle that intelligence doesn’t exist. Still, put people with IQ 70 and 130 in a freshman calculus class and your question will be answered. …
Do IQ tests “work”? Statistically, yes. In the case of individuals, not always. If you take the test with a hangover, you may do poorly. If the test is in English, which you read poorly, likewise. The designers of tests are quite aware of these problems and avoid them.
The woke objection to tests is precisely that they do work: that the numbers correlate closely with observed outcomes. All manner of studies have shown that IQ is a good predictor of success in fields requiring thought. Along with semi-IQ tests, such as the SATs and the military’s AFQT, IQ tests have been used successfully for many decades as predictors of success in university and in selection of candidates for military jobs such as truck driving or electronics tech. They all give closely similar results for racial groups.
The truth, unpalatable though it be, very much appears to be that we differ, both as individuals, and races, in intelligence. This has and will have grave consequences. Is it wiser to ignore this, and thus have no influence over events? To pretend? Or to concede reality, grapple with the problem and try to find the least unpleasant road forward?
The left is forging ahead with using government power to coerce “equity”, which means equality of outcome. Unfortunately, equality of outcome has historically invariably resulted in an evening out at the lowest level.
Harrison Bergeron, 2070
Prediction 1: Societies that treat their best athletic talent poorly, and neglect their development due to equity concerns, will do poorly in international sporting competitions.
Prediction 2: Societies that treat their best intellectual talent poorly, and neglect their development due to equity concerns, will do poorly in international economic comparisons and military competitions.
It’s all so obvious it shouldn’t need spelling out like this, but the left are stubbornly refusing to concede to reality. They are going to die in a ditch over this one.