2008 March 10 Monday
Universities See Brain Shortage Upcoming

They will of course continue to deny that genetic potentials have anything to do with their looming shortage of smart young minds.

Colleges and universities are anxiously taking steps to address a projected drop in the number of high school graduates in much of the nation starting next year and a dramatic change in the racial and ethnic makeup of the student population, a phenomenon expected to transform the country's higher education landscape, educators and analysts said.

I doubt the increase in smarter Asians will offset the effects of more Hispanics.

The United States can't maintain its position in the world with a decaying demographic situation. Most of all we need brains and lots of them to keep the economy growing and to stay on the technological edge.

Colleges and universities, much like American corporations, will increase their drive to reach a global marketplace of prospective customers. They will of course pretend not to notice their need to go abroad to get the brains as they trumpet the glories of diversity.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 March 10 11:27 PM  Education


Comments
HellKaiserRyo said at March 11, 2008 12:44 AM:

Richard Lynn says that the Chineses will embrace eugenics (in the form of embryo selection) and rule the world while Western civilization will be less enthusiastic about eugenics.

I always wanted embryo selection when it is available to be an entitlement to be paid for the the state.

black sea said at March 11, 2008 6:14 AM:

The obvious thing to do when the talent level of incoming students drops is to lower the demands of the curriculum. No administrator will - of course - put it quite that bluntly. But that's what happens. You just can't run most classes at a 30% failure rate. As "weed out" courses, these classes may serve a function. But more generally, they create a huge backlog of students taking the same courses over and over again (before they eventually drop out) which leads to an administrative and staffing nightmare. And nobody yet has found a way to consistently take students with lower SATs and prepare them to perform at the level of students with higher SATs. So the only feasible option is to lower the standards.

Actually, the more reasonable option is to stop sending so many mediocre students through the university diploma mills, a proposal which has been discussed here many times before.

Anon said at March 11, 2008 6:36 AM:

That Japanese PM was right all those years ago. Blacks and hispanics drag the US down.

LiberalPercy said at March 11, 2008 6:42 AM:

You are a racist bastard.

The paragraph you quote said nothing about a shortage of 'brains', but a decrease in the number of students. Then you assume a change away from a majority of white students means a loss of 'smart' young minds.

That kind of thinking gave us the Nazis.

"Decaying" demographics? Our demographics have been "decaying" ever since the first Europeans set foot on this hemisphere and started spreading the disease of racist, white supremacist thinking like yours.

MattM said at March 11, 2008 7:05 AM:

Well, I guess Alberto Gonzales proves your point...

Outraged said at March 11, 2008 7:33 AM:

Nice work LiberalPercy! I'd like to get ahead of the curve and denounce everyone here as a racist (and illegitimate as well, not just Randall Parker. You should all be ashamed at pointing out that blacks and hispanics are not as intelligent on average than whites and are prone to criminal activity of the most heinous kind on a repeat basis. Or that blacks/hispanics are mostly failures when it comes to education and that the program of study must be watered down so that they can have a minimal chance of even passing. Or that even when supposedly "intelligent" minority students get admitted to top schools it is only due to Affirmative Action and that their work is rather substandard even in non-academic fields like African Studies (but I'm not talking about Michelle Obama going to Princeton in case anyone was thinking that). Thankfully, nobody pointed out places like Zimbabwe or Detroit as to what places that are populated by non-asian minorities are truly like and that there aren't any whites around to engage in institutional racism, hate speech, etc.... But I'm sure some of you were thinking about it. I'll be watching this website very closely to see if any of you bigots decide to continue your Nazi-like activities.

Phranqlin said at March 11, 2008 7:58 AM:

There's no "brain drain." The total number of high school students dropped because the birthrate decreased back in the early 1990s. This is good news for the kids in this demographic cohort because they'll have an easier time getting admitted to college. It will give these kids more access to educational resources, too, because there won't be as many of them competing for a slice of the pie. It will also mean that they'll have an easier time finding jobs when they graduate. Kids from the lower end of the economic spectrum will get a chance to break into the professional classes because there will be more opportunities for them.

The real brain drain is that most American kids don't want to study the hard sciences, engineering and computers, so there aren't as many technical people in the pipeline to retain the research and development edge that America has historically enjoyed. And who could blame them? They've seen their parents' technical jobs get shipped off to India and China, while financial and banking execs made big bucks playing shell games with other people's assets. Of course they are going to follow the money.

And the idea that stupid Hispanics and Blacks are somehow holding big-brained White people back is baloney. I've known too many White folks who are dumb as a box of hammers and too many smart, capable Black and Hispanic folks to believe this sort of racist nonsense.

Wolf-Dog said at March 11, 2008 8:41 AM:

Even though the median or average intelligence may have declined (video games and television culture might have caused some of this), competition for entrance to the top 20 colleges is more intense than ever. This is because the intelligence of the top 10 % in the US appears to be increasing even though the lower 50 % may be deteriorating.

But in any case, even though we do not have a large percentage of students majoring in sciences, we still have a lot of unemployed engineers and sciences, because the outsourcing phenomenon simply destroyed many jobs in the US. This problem is absolutely deleterious, and it must be solved.

Nobody said at March 11, 2008 9:48 AM:

And the idea that stupid Hispanics and Blacks are somehow holding big-brained White people back is baloney.

I agree. These stupid blacks and hispanics aren't holding any white people back. They're killing them.


http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/03/auburn_police_officer_100_perc.html

black sea said at March 11, 2008 10:15 AM:

Two points to make.

1. If the pool of high school graduates drops, as the article stipulates, but the number of college admissions remains the same, as is likely, (unless it in fact increases) then the overall academic ability of those admitted to college will also drop. This is like a law of physics. It is as true among a population of exclusively Ashkenazi Jews as it is among Aleutian Eskimos. I'm hoping I don't have to explain this.

2. The academic ability of blacks and hispanics, so far as it has been gauged through stadardized tests such as the SAT, is consistently lower than that of whites and asians. To cite this fact is not to succumb to "racist nonsense." One may attempt to dispute the relevance of such tests to intellectual ability, and I'm not aruging here that there is a "perfect" test that identifies everything that every individual is capable of accomplishing in his or her life. No test is ever going to be THAT predictive. But the correlation between SAT and IQ scores and future academic success is one that can't be dismissed simply by calling someone a "racist bastard." To do so is to expose the poverty of one's argument.

Steve said at March 11, 2008 10:26 AM:

Universities aren’t the only ones who are worried about the evident “brain shortage”. I’ve talked to a lot of zombies that are worried about that as well. For them, however, the shortage is more pressing as the resource in question is much more vital to their overall well-being than just a matter of education.

I think the obvious solution is the simplest: let the market function. The price of brains will increase as the universities and zombies bid for them and that should spur more brains being made available to satisfy demand.

LiberalPercy said at March 11, 2008 12:06 PM:

I cannot believe you wingnuts still believe that racist crap. You take kids of any ethnicity with the same economic demographics and teach them in the same schools and the test grades average out the same for all groups. That's been studied and shown repeatedly. It's not race, it's economics!

Of course, the fact that centuries of institutional racism has kept more Hispanics and Blacks in lower ECONOMIC classes on average, means academic results will be skewed. Poorer families, poorer schools, poorer educational results. The loop keeps getting perpetuated by ignorant attitudes like "black sea", "outraged" and "nobody". If the black and brown folk are stupid, why should we fix their schools or their neighborhoods? Why should we even treat them as fellow human beings? Very Christian attitude folks.

And I call Parapundit a bastard, not to question his ancestry, but because anyone who pushes such illegitimate bile IS an S.O.B.

A. Wyatt Mann said at March 11, 2008 12:29 PM:

LiberalPercy,
This is a parody, right? And I changed my name too!

Lisa said at March 11, 2008 2:23 PM:

The fact that you would extrapolate "Mexicans and blacks are dumber than Asians and whites" as the crisis of that article proves to me that there is indeed a group of idiots dragging down the national IQ - but it is not blacks and hispanics.

Practice your hooked on phonics, read the article again, then get back to us so you can sit at the big kids table and discuss this matter with the grown-ups.

black sea said at March 11, 2008 2:28 PM:

LP,

Please examine this graph. It is "based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale [and shows] IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4) and Blacks (mean = 86.9) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330); distributions for Hispanics (mean = 91) and Asians (mean = 106) are less precise." You are welcome to point out any flaws in Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale with which you are acquainted. Please note that the graph posits no theories as to why the respective distributions for these four poopulation groups exist.

"You take kids of any ethnicity with the same economic demographics and teach them in the same schools and the test grades average out the same for all groups. That's been studied and shown repeatedly." Since this has been "shown repeatedly" perhaps you could provide some academic citation?

You seem to be relying almost exclusively on invective at this point, so let me offer a suggestion. You might do better by trying to dispute the accuracy, reliability, or relevance of these statistics, rather than falling back on terminology such as, "wingnuts . . . racist crap . . ignorant." As I've already pointed out, doing so only exposes the poverty of your argument.

black sea said at March 11, 2008 2:31 PM:

The graph is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sketch-4race-transparent.png

A. Wyatt Man said at March 11, 2008 2:36 PM:

Lisa,
We've heard it all before, but thanks again for the input. Now get back to your Womyn's Lit, cats and liberal status games with your pale pals. But please be careful around those ATMs. Blacks have low IQs but they aren't so stupid as to not know where the money is.

Robert Hume said at March 11, 2008 2:39 PM:

LP,

Steve Sailer has pointed out that the distributions of IQ that are cited by others here imply that there are about six million blacks smarter than the average white.

It's the *average* IQ that is lower for blacks. By insisting that the average black achieve equally to the average white *liberals* condemn the smart blacks to not be tracked so that they can achieve. They force those six million smart blacks to not "act white".

There is a real world out there. Ignoring it leads to bad policy and to disaster.

Rand said at March 11, 2008 3:33 PM:

A couple of things worth noting:

- Many critics contend that IQ is not an accurate reflection of overall intelligence.
- IQ levels of people of all races is going up, and has been for many years. IQ tests need to be recalibrated every so often to reflect increasing IQ. An IQ of 100 today is far higher than an IQ of 100 in 1940, for example, despite the being represented by the same number.
- Whether or not someone goes to college seems to be affected more by the environment in which a child is raised than by how he or she scores on an IQ test.
- Similar to the above, women are going to college in far greater numbers than men. This is because the environment in which we live has put higher expectations on women, while the expectations on men have stayed the same (or gotten lower). Nobody uses this as evidence that women are "more intelligent" than men, or that men are holding women back.
- If you can find a reliable study that states that IQ is based on race, rather than a generic graph of averages with no other factors balanced, I would like to see it. I look forward to being provided a citation.

Mensarefugee said at March 11, 2008 4:12 PM:

Yes,yes I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!

Percy, how can this brown former race realist thank you enough!

I will dedicate the rest of my life to teaching Lashawnyas and her little fatherless broods to read, write, and not assault and rape people.

Rand,
Women have been what they have always been - marginally to moderately behind men. Enrollment has gone up, but the number of women in *real* degrees, engineering, computer science etc is low low low.

black sea said at March 11, 2008 4:55 PM:

Rand,

I assume the last comment was directed primarily at me. Please identify where, exactly, I have claimed that IQ is "based on race." I assume that by this you mean that it is immutably tied to genetic characteristics associated with race.

I have already stipulated the following:

"One may attempt to dispute the relevance of such tests to intellectual ability, and I'm not aruging here that there is a "perfect" test that identifies everything that every individual is capable of accomplishing in his or her life."

In other words, I am open to arguments that the standardized testing commonly used is in various ways flawed, incomplete, or inaccurate, or too narrow in focus. In fact, I am of the opinion that "intelligence" itself is an abstract term of imprecise meaning, and reasonable people can disagree about what it is, as well as how well it might or might not be measured.

The claim that there are discrepancies in average IQ scores on various widely-used examinations among racial groups is, however, not an expression of opinion. It is a statement of fact. I do not claim to know why this discrepancy exists, which is why, you will note, I have not claimed in my comments that it is "based on race." Virtually all researchers of this issue acknoweledge that both inheritance and enviroment play a role in the development of cognitive abilities. However, that such a discrepancy itself does exist is not in serious dispute.

Nevertheless, given that IQ measurments correlate with academic success, those with higher IQ scores will, on average, demonstrate higher degrees of academic success.

Again,if you believe that these statistical claims are in error, please demonstrate why.

Citation:

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-43536.html

Randall Parker said at March 11, 2008 6:09 PM:

Ho Hum to the liberals who like to call people racist for having an accurate assessment of reality.

Left liberals fantasize that upbringing has a large impact on intelligence. No, the evidence does not support the proposition that social environment has a long-lasting effect on IQ. Trans-racial adoption studies do not find an effect from getting by higher SES families from a race that scores higher on IQ tests on average.

SES has no effect on success of transracially adopted Koreans in America. Also see the follow-up.

Here's a debunking of this great liberal hope for environment over genetics (PDF Format)

Three studies of racially mixed individuals at first appear to support the culture-only hypothesis against the genetic hypothesis. Eyferth (1961; Eyferth, Brandt, & Hawel, 1960) reported IQ data for out-of-wedlock children fathered by soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II and then reared by White German mothers. The mean IQs for 83 White children and for 98 racially mixed children were both about 97 (97.2 for the Whites, 96.5 for the racially-mixed). As Loehlin et al. (1975, pp. 126-128) noted, however, these results are ambiguous for three reasons. First, the children were still very young when tested. One-third of the children were between 5 and 10 years of age, and two-thirds between 10 and 13. As discussed in Section 5 (see Figure 3), behavior genetic studies show that while family socialization effects on IQ are often strong before puberty, after puberty they dwindle, sometimes to zero. Second, 20 to 25% of the "Black" fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans (i.e., largely Caucasian or "Whites" as we have defined the terms here). Third, there was rigorous selection based on IQ score in the U.S. Army at the time, with a rejection rate for Blacks on the pre-induction Army General Classification Test of about 30%, compared to 3% for Whites (Davenport, 1946, Tables I and III).

The second study reports a nine-point IQ advantage for the four-year-old offspring of couples with a White mother and a Black father (mean IQ = 102, N = 101) compared to those from the offspring of a Black mother and a White father (mean IQ = 93, N = 28). Assuming White mothers provide better pre- and/or post-natal environments for their children than do Black mothers, Willerman, Naylor, and Myrianthopoulos (1974) interpreted their data as more consistent with a cultural than a genetic hypothesis (see also Nisbett, 1998). However, Loehlin et al. (1975, p. 126) noted that the mixed-race pairs with White mothers averaged almost a year more schooling than did the pairs with Black mothers. Thus the White mothers may have had a higher average IQ than the Black ones. The mid-parent IQs have to be the same for the results to be interpretable. Also, the two sets of mixed-race children averaged an IQ of 98, intermediate to the White and Black children in the sample from whom the mixed-race children had been drawn (IQs = 105 and 91, respectively; Broman, Nichols, & Kennedy, 1975, p. 43). The third study seeming to support the culture-only hypothesis is a subsidiary analysis by Moore (1986) (see Section 8) of a small number of seven-year-old children adopted by middle-class White parents. Moore found no difference in IQ between those children with only one and those with two Black biological parents. The mean IQ for the group of 9 adopted children with two Black biological parents was 109, and the mean IQ for the group of 14 children with one Black and one White biological parent was 107. Given the young age of these children, a follow-up to adolescence would be informative.

IQ is known to become more genetically determined with age. There's a few reasons for this. The most notable is that intelligence doesn't stop rising due to neuronal growth until late adolescence. People with genetic variations that make their brains grow for a longer period of time will not show the advantage of those genetic variations until their mid to late teens.

On the predictive value of IQ read g: Highly general and highly practical. Or how about g, jobs, and life. Both are by psychometrician Linda Gottfredson. You can find more articles by her on her reprints page.

Also, read the Rushton and Jensen papers here. Also, read Charles Murray's recent Commentary article The Inequality Taboo.

Start with The Bell Curve. Also read Intelligence,Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen by Jensen and Frank Miele and The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability by Arthur Jensen. If you want a free book on IQ then check out the free download of Chris Brand's IQ book g Factor (same title, different book). I haven't read Brand's book.

Randall Parker said at March 11, 2008 6:27 PM:

Also, read Jason Malloy's review of Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis.

mensarefugee said at March 11, 2008 6:50 PM:

If liberals want something to do....environment-wise, they could take a hard look at the school system. You cant make people smarter, but you can probably, a little bit, make their life a little more palatable with good policy. Read this long but interesting article primarily centered on nerds - but a semi-good analysis of the school system.

JSBolton said at March 11, 2008 8:10 PM:

If it's all, or even partially caused by class/economics, how could the children of blacks with incomes over $100,000/year not do better on tests for college admission than whites from households with incomes under 10,000?

JSBolton said at March 11, 2008 9:33 PM:

Arthur Hu in National Review said: "SAT breakdowns for 1995 show that even the most affluent blacks, from families with incomes over $70,000, have average scores of 426, lagging behind whites or Asians from families with incomes under $10,000." More recent results show the 100k/10k lack of environmental effect.

JSBolton said at March 11, 2008 9:39 PM:

Here is a reference for the Hu data: "Education and race: the performance of minority students in affluent areas refutes the prevailing educational shibboleths.(Cover Story)
From: National Review | Date: 9/15/1997 | Author: Hu, Arthur"

Marc said at March 12, 2008 3:25 AM:

I don't agree with a great deal posted on this blog, but it's good for one thing: baiting the race deniers to expose themselves so that they may receive their long-overdue intellectual thrashing.

Irish Savant said at March 12, 2008 9:56 AM:

LiberPercy illustreates perfectly what Steve Sailer calls 'point and splutter'. No attempt to disprove the case, just brandish the epithetes Nazi and racist, and all further argument rendered redundant. 'Label and dismiss' another way to describe it.

A. Wyatt Mann said at March 12, 2008 10:36 AM:

"LiberPercy illustreates perfectly what Steve Sailer calls 'point and splutter'. No attempt to disprove the case, just brandish the epithetes Nazi and racist, and all further argument rendered redundant. 'Label and dismiss' another way to describe it."

I actually feel bad for the guy(or gal) and Lisa too. Probably nice, educated liberals who went to good schools and live in nice areas and have nice jobs and families. They don't see or want to see the dark underbelly of what racial reality truly is (they have probably been insulated from it and they should thank their parents for that). Lord knows why anybody would ever go look for it on purpose and you can be sure the press doesn't. I sure didn't want to and I wish I never had either. I saw what happened during the LA riots and I had the distinct dipleasure of being down in Louisiana during and after Katrina. I'm alive because I had a gun, period. The only good thing about that experience is that I wasn't at the Superdome. Race reality isn't pleasant. It is depressing and frightening. I joke about it here and make fun of these people because dark humor is pretty much all that is left. Many can claim economics, racism, sunspots, or whatever they think the issue is. Fine by me. But please just watch your back at the ATM or walking home from the subway after work. In the final analysis, your skin color will be your uniform. Do I like it? No. Is that reality, you bet.

HellKaiserRyo said at March 12, 2008 6:28 PM:

"Ho Hum to the liberals who like to call people racist for having an accurate assessment of reality.

Left liberals fantasize that upbringing has a large impact on intelligence. No, the evidence does not support the proposition that social environment has a long-lasting effect on IQ. Trans-racial adoption studies do not find an effect from getting by higher SES families from a race that scores higher on IQ tests on average."

You really piss me off with those remarks... I am sorry I do not have enough "g" to volubly express those sentiments without any recourse to any expletives.

I do not think the "conservatives" are correct about this too. Look, I even discussed this with some conservatives on another forum and one person called Gottfredson's work "elitist offal." This is a myth that some members of the right perpetuate too. One key tenet of right-wing ideology is an emphasis on personal responsibility. Well, if some people are born mentally incapable, it sunders that pillar of right-wing ideology. Such a belief is necessary to justify that most of the unfortunate are lazy when their own quagmire is caused by circumstances that they have no control over.

I believe you are indeed correct when you use the word “fantasize” not “believe” in your statements. I do think some liberals believe that the IQ differentials are genetic in origin:

“Why? The topic of race and genes is like the topic of sex in Victorian England. The intellectual elites are horrified if anyone talks about it, but behind the scenes they are fascinated. I will say it more baldly than [Richard Herrnstein] and I did in the book: In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially liberal ones, have two nasty secrets regarding IQ. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black -white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n23_v49/ai_20088593/pg_2

I do count myself as a liberal, and I will NOT hesitate to lie to other liberals about this. I, however, am willing to say otherwise to people who are on the right-wing of the political spectrum because this can be used to assail some of their ideological principles. I will not be reluctant to say what I think in situations where I do not have to be politically correct (such as this blog.) I only lie because I want to maintain an egalitarian ethos, but I do believe that the truth unambiguously be acknowledged when the time is right – but now is not this time. Furthermore, some liberals such as Peter Singer are willing to acknowledge this and advocate practical solutions such as using techno-eugenics to rectify this. I do feel that supporting liberalism is the best way to deal with this problem in the [b]long run[/b] – for example most liberals do not have any compunction with discarding embryos for IVF + PIGD and are willing to support the proliferation of such reproductive technologies when available. To put it tersely, the liberals will eventually mature and properly deal with this despite their current puerile (and ostensibly irrational) beliefs on this issue.

Do not consider the conservatives to be moral pillars of rectitude... I see them as people who squander the future of the country by running huge deficits by engaging in unjust, poorly planned, ideologically driven wars. They also pander to the religious right and support their agenda of coercive theocracy that is antithetical to Lockean values (although the free market is revered there) and its more advanced offspring such as the theories of John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and Peter Singer.

Randall Parker said at March 12, 2008 8:01 PM:

HellKaiserRyo,

The vast majority of both liberals and conservatives believe there is a large genetic component to IQ differences and to differences in behavior. In the privacy of their own minds very few liberals really believe the races are all equal.

How many Jews believe that other races and ethnic groups are really as smart as the Jews? 5%? Probably not that many.

Get to know someone really really well and build up enough trust and then ask them what they believe at what you perceive as a weak moment. I know college profs, newspaper and magazine columnists, business executives, and many others who secretly believe that taboo truth that dare not be spoken.

Many people think that by telling lies in unison they make the truth less damaging. It is like a mass attempt at creating a solipsistic universe.

The truth is going to be acknowledged by the mainstream by 2015 at the latest. The costs of DNA sequencing have fallen so far already that the level of DNA testing needed to tease out the alleles contributing to IQ is already possible to do with several years of research. But the next several years will bring even bigger drops in DNA testing costs.

Dave said at March 12, 2008 10:00 PM:

With a "egalitarian ethos" are you against the death penalty, HellKaiserRyo?

Marc said at March 13, 2008 7:22 AM:

I don't think that most liberals believe, in their heart of hearts, that differences in IQ are genetic in origin. The idea that they fantasize, but do not believe, that racial differences in IQ are caused by environmental influences can't explain the effort they put into defending the environmental hypothesis. People will fight tooth and nail to preserve their beliefs, but their fantasies? I just don't see it. I think most people, liberal and conservative, go with the environmental hypthesis when they think of the issue at all because it is the socially acceptable thing to do. Among those who have thought about it more, I think a significant number of both iberals and conservatives believe that racial differences in IQ are genetic, but keep their mouths shut. A very small minority believe the differences are genetic and will actually admit as much.

Incidentally, shame on you HellKaiserRyo, for lying about what you believe to "maintain an egalitarian ethos." It's one thing to keep quiet, quite another to propagate a lie. Also, if you truly believe that the time is not right for this to go mainstream, but that the time will eventually be right, what circumstances must be in place for this shift to occur? I personally think that the time is always right for the truth to be spoken, but I'm open to practical arguments to the contrary if you care to elaborate.

As for eugenic embryonic screening solving the issue, I disagree. Once the technology becomes available, the people with the resources to screen and dispose of genetically undesirable embryos will not be the people who suffer from low intelligence. (Will people with IQs of 85 even care about their children's intelligence?) Genetic engineering may merely widen the gap between haves and have nots.

I also think you underestimate the depth of the opposition many people feel toward destroying human embryos, as well as the physical ordeal of IVF treatment. Women who undergo IVF are desperate for babies. I doubt a large number of people who can conceive naturaly will be willing to go through the dangerous and exhausting process of IVF just to ensure their child has an IQ of 105 instead of 95.

Bob Badour said at March 13, 2008 8:34 AM:

Marc,

You fail to consider the power of status hierarchies. White liberals put so much effort into defending the fantasy because such defense earns them a place high on the status hierarchy above other whites. That's important to them, because deep in their hearts they know it's no great feat to achieve higher status than blacks.

HellKaiserRyo said at March 13, 2008 9:25 AM:

"Get to know someone really really well and build up enough trust and then ask them what they believe at what you perceive as a weak moment. I know college profs, newspaper and magazine columnists, business executives, and many others who secretly believe that taboo truth that dare not be spoken."

I have trouble making friends with real people, okay... I do not think it is a "vast majority;" I estimate that it might be around 30% or so although I have no empirical evidence for this. I think it is much like the Catholic Church... a vast majority of "sheep" actually believe in the dogma, while a small, but notable proportion of the hierarchy (I'll estimate 15%) know it is all bunkum. But if the minority 30% speaks out when they are with their fellow liberals (for example, on a venue such as the Daily Kos,) they would be called epithets such as "racist."

Maybe one reason that liberals support welfare programs because they believe in their heart of hearts that the unfortunate do not have the ability to support themselves and they think government programs are the best way to help them.

I think technology will solve some of the travails of IVF... I am not too sure though.

Randall Parker said at March 13, 2008 5:31 PM:

HellKaiserRyo, Marc,

Yes, the majority really do believe the truth. Watch where they send their kids. Watch hard core liberal Democrats drive their kids to distant public and private schools to keep their kids away from Hispanic and/or black kids. Watch Obama supporters move to lily white suburbs. I'm telling you, the differences between their actions and their words are enormous.

The majority believe the minority: No way. The majority are cowed into silence by a highly coordinated screeching righteous minority. The majority would like to speak their minds. They know they can't.

I know left-liberals who are in the closet. I know reporters and professors in the closet. The closet is a crowded place on America's intellectual scene.

Look at the city of New York. The Jews elect Republicans as mayor in order to keep black men out of office. Nobody says anything about it. But there it is.

What's the appeal of Hispanics? They are a low IQ cheap manual labor minority that is not as scary as blacks.

Wolf-Dog said at March 14, 2008 5:12 AM:

Since so many people are talking about the importance of IQ, let us note that according to this Wikipedia article, Eliot Spitzer had a score of 1590 on the SAT exam, attented Princeton. He then attained a perfect score on the LSAT test (the LSAT score ranges from 120 to 180) and went to Harvard Law School:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer


Thus, according to the following conversion table, the IQ of Eliot Spitzer is at least 160:

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/

Marc said at March 14, 2008 7:52 AM:

Yes, the majority really do believe the truth. Watch where they send their kids. Watch hard core liberal Democrats drive their kids to distant public and private schools to keep their kids away from Hispanic and/or black kids. Watch Obama supporters move to lily white suburbs. I'm telling you, the differences between their actions and their words are enormous.

Yeah, but many don't believe that race is the cause of these differences. They think these differences are due to the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery. So they see no contradiction in moving into lilly-white suburbs to escape black dysfunction and attempting to change society in a way that will alleviate the cause of black dysfunction. They get to have the best of both worlds by protecting their kids from black underclass subculture while believing in their heart of hearts that that subculture is not connected to genetics but, rather, to environmental conditions that they are working to eliminate.

Wolf-Dog said at March 14, 2008 11:02 AM:

Correct me if you think I am wrong, but it seems to me that as the whites moved to the suburbs in order to escape the non-whites, maybe they also lost touch with the real good old industrial America... I see some kind of parallel with this new segregation and the outsourcing of all the American industry.

But even if we do get more high IQ engineers out of the American universities, they will not find too many jobs due to the de-industrialization of the United States.

A. Wyatt Mann said at March 14, 2008 11:35 AM:

Wolf-Dog,
Whites have have lost touch with more than old industrial America. We have lost touch with ourselves and who we are as whites. White elites exploit other whites, import 3rd world savages and sing the multi-culti, PC song, but live in white areas like Chappaqua, not Detroit. White elites sought to destroy innocent young men down at Duke University and almost got away with it. That is a metaphor for what is happening to whites as a people. Diversity=death. Hard times are coming.

Wolf-Dog said at March 14, 2008 12:10 PM:

What do you mean by "Diversity=death."? Do you mean that non-whites cannot be assimilated into the white culture? Not all non-whites are like the "third world savages" that you mentioned. If you look at the science and engineering departments of many top universities like Harvard, MIT, etc, you will find a lot of professors of Indian and Chinese ancestry, who are as American as apple pie.

A. Wyatt Mann said at March 14, 2008 12:39 PM:

"What do you mean by "Diversity=death."?

I mean this:

http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/chapel_11370___article.html/suspect_held.html

"Do you mean that non-whites cannot be assimilated into the white culture? If you look at the science and engineering departments of many top universities like Harvard, MIT, etc, you will find a lot of professors of Indian and Chinese ancestry, who are as American as apple pie."

For the most part, no. It has been an utter failure resulting in the deaths of thousands, the rape, robbery and maiming of thousands more, not to mention the money spent(or rather tossed on the burn pile). An example: How long have blacks lived in the US? 400+ years? How has that worked out? You mention highly intelligent individuals of non-caucasian ancestry in top universities in fields like engineering/science. For every 1 person like that we have hundreds, if not thousands of Demarios. Get out of the universities and hit places like North Philadelphia, East St. Louis or New Orleans(I'd be happy to tell you about more of the mayhem I saw down there if you are interested). Take a walk around LA. Do you work in the CS field Wolf-Dog? Here is what Bill Gates has in store for you:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080312143412.qjper5cy&show_article=1

Thanks for all your hard work, you services are no longer required.

Wolf-Dog said at March 14, 2008 1:36 PM:

"Do you work in the CS field Wolf-Dog? Here is what Bill Gates has in store for you:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080312143412.qjper5cy&show_article=1
Thanks for all your hard work, you services are no longer required. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, instead of letting millions of unskilled immigrants per year (on the basis of family reunification, etc), if we let in only a few hundred thousand high IQ immigrants (politically incorrectly measured by requiring both GRE scores in the top 98 % in addition to advanced degrees just in case the degrees are fake), the outcome for the US would be much better. Recall that the Manhattan project started because Einstein and other destitute "refugee" physicists wrote a letter to Roosevelt, warning him that Hitler's physicists were working on an atom bomb project (which fell behind schedule fortunately, but this was because Germany's resources were squandered by the land war against Russia). Had these miserable German and hungarian refugees been rejected, and had Hitler waited a few more years by delaying the provocations that led to World War II, then you would have been speaking German now. Having a large high IQ critical population, is essential and for the future of the United States, both in the economic and military sense.

Secondly, to answer your last comment that these high IQ immigrants are stealing jobs from American engineers, if you look at Silicon Valley, you will see that a very high percentage of the most successful entrepreneurs, (including that Russian kid with the sinister smile who founded Google), happen to be high IQ immigrants, who, according to your definition, would be stealing jobs from Americans. Actually, if they stay in the United States, they end up creating more jobs than they are stealing. The real danger for America, as many Silicon Valley leaders pointed out to the U.S. government, is if the smartest Indian and Chinese engineers stay in their countries and start founding companies that compete against the United States, and this is precisely what is happening now.

In any case, the FIRST step is to modify that ridiculous annual green card "lottery" that gives 50,000 green cards to a lot of people: Require that in order to register for the lottery, the candidates must be in the top 99 percentile.


A. Wyatt Mann said at March 14, 2008 2:21 PM:

Wold-Dog,
You seem to be evading the issue. I don't like our elites and gov't colluding to treat Americans like economic units to be paid the lowest possible wages in order for elites to enrich themselves. I have always felt that being an American entitled you to certain rights and didn't involve other American exploiting you and the system for profit. Maybe you feel that we are all citizens of the world, borders don't matter, etc...I don't know. I certainly don't feel that way. However, I am in agreement with regarding letting the brightest people come here and become Americans after being very carefully screened. The chances of that are probably nil though. But as I said for every high IQ immigrant who wants to become American as apple pie, we get thousands of Demarios and others who come here to drive down wages, increase the tax burden, murder us, destroy the enviornment, destroy our nation and culture, loot our nation and spy for their mother nations. How much intel and tech has the PRC taken?

I noticed you evaded the issue about Demario and other savages like him. I don't blame you. It is scary shit. So I stand by my statement: Diversity=Death.

Randall Parker said at March 14, 2008 7:36 PM:

Marc,

You say:

Yeah, but many don't believe that race is the cause of these differences. They think these differences are due to the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery.

They know they are rationalizing. They know they are lying. They've all agreed to say a group lie. It is like a marker of someone's dedication to their liberal tribe. They show they are willing to pay the price of membership by saying something they don't really believe. Everyone has to morally compromise themself to demonstrate their dedication to the group.

Lying is just another way of buying into a group. Telling this lie about racial equality of ability is like submitting oneself to a hazing ritual to join a fraternity or secret society. One shows one is willing to put group harmony and societal harmony above one's desire to tell the truth.

There is safety in the group lie because they can count on other people to defend them for telling the lie. The joint lie telling enables them to look down together on lower status truth tellers who aren't members of their tribe.

Randall Parker said at March 14, 2008 9:32 PM:

Wolf-Dog,

There's no trade going on here where we get 1 smart person for every 10 or 20 dumb immigrants. We should just keep out the dummies. As La Griffe Du Lion showed with his The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations (and Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag), the dummies lower the economic output of the smarties.

\Wolf-Dog said at March 15, 2008 12:24 AM:

"I noticed you evaded the issue about Demario and other savages like him. I don't blame you. It is scary shit. So I stand by my statement: Diversity=Death."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not evade the issue of "savages", on the contrary, I was trying to say that the Indian and Chinese professors at MIT and Harvard were not savages. In other words, I was trying to emphasize that Diversity by itself is NOT death, it is the lower quality that is deleterious.

Kenelm Digby said at March 15, 2008 6:38 AM:

Wolf-Dog,
Do you seriously believe that any Jewish scientist would have actually shown any intiative and committment if he was 'forced' to work on a German atom-bomb?
Don't you think he would rather waste as much time and effort as possible doing useless work pretending it was important.
Conversly, don't you think that the many Jewish emigres working on the Manhattan project gave everthing, their blood, sweat, tears, every possible human effort in order for the USA to have the bomb and thusly destroy Germany?

Wolf-Dog said at March 15, 2008 7:21 AM:

Kenelm,

You are assuming that all the prominent German physicists before World War II were Jewish. Not all leading German physicists were Jewish. The head of Hitler's atom bomb project, was the Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg. (Not all names ending with "berg" are Jewish.) There are a few good books about the progress of the Nazi atom bomb project during WW II, but I strongly recommend "Heisenberg's War" by Thomas Powers:

http://www.amazon.com/Heisenbergs-War-Secret-History-German/dp/0306810115/

It turns out that the Nazi physicists did have the know-how to build the bomb, but their resources were insufficient to build the bomb during WW II because Hitler, due to his strategic stupidity, allocated most of his resources to land warfare, and also to very useless but expensive weapons like Von Braun's V-1 and V-2 rockets (which had spectacular propaganda value, and therefore appealed to Hitler's psychology which favored external appearances and images). Although Werner Heisenberg was not punished after World War II, on one hand he had Jewish friends, and on the other hand he became a friend of top Nazi officials such as Himmler (to make sure that they do not fire him), and he did want Germany to win the war. Thomas Powers' book shows that Heisenberg intentionally lied to the Nazis and exaggerated the difficulties in building the bomb, but his real motivation, was probably the fear that if the limited and insufficient resources of Germany caused him to fail to complete the project on schedule, he would be punished by the Nazis, and for this reason, he basically sabotaged the project by saying that the critical mass was 1 ton instead of less than 20 kg. (Although Heisenberg stated in a public presentation to the Nazi officials that one ton of enriched uranium would be needed, he did tell his colleagues privately that the critical mass would be less than 20 kg.) By the way, the Swiss government was also helping German purchase uranium from Africa, and from various European sources, Germany was also obtaining uranium during WW II. But the bottom line is that had Hitler waited a few years, and secretly worked on the atom bomb for a few years BEFORE starting WW II, the world would have surrendered to Germany.

Skot German said at March 15, 2008 4:41 PM:

From WolfDog: "The real danger for America, as many Silicon Valley leaders pointed out to the U.S. government, is if the smartest Indian and Chinese engineers stay in their countries and start founding companies that compete against the United States, and this is precisely what is happening now."

Europeans can hold their own against the Chinese and Indians, as the historical record adequately shows. I would prefer that we limit immigration to Europeans exclusively, even if it means a small decrease in our technological competiveness. Even if the Indians and Chinese are superior to Europeans in average intelligence and criminal propensity, they are not Europeans, they are not necessary for our well being and they will cause racial strife. In years gone by, there was plenty of strife in the US between European nationalities.

Wolf-Dog said at March 16, 2008 5:39 AM:

"Even if the Indians and Chinese are superior to Europeans in average intelligence and criminal propensity, they are not Europeans, they are not necessary for our well being and they will cause racial strife."
--------------------------------------

Racial strife will be caused only if we let in very large number of less intelligent people. Clearly not all Indian and Chinese immigrants are exceptionally smart to make a positive contribution. If immigration was limited to the top 2 percentile, then there would be no racial strife because of the following two reasons: first of all a much smaller number of immigrants would be qualified per year, actually causing a decline in the US population, and secondly, the immigrants who are in the top 5 percentile, are far less likely to be criminals. The immigrant Indian and Chinese criminal gangs are among the less intelligent sub-groups of their nations.

Bob Badour said at March 16, 2008 8:37 AM:

Wolf-Dog,

2% of 750 million is still 15 million immigrants. Are you suggesting that 15 million immigrants would reduce the US population?

Wolf-Dog said at March 16, 2008 11:42 AM:

"2% of 750 million is still 15 million immigrants. Are you suggesting that 15 million immigrants would reduce the US population?"
------------------------------------------------

You are correct, but there is absolutely no way all the brilliant people in foreign countries want to immigrate to the U.S. In fact, most of the people in the top 2 percentile, would stay in their countries because they are smart enough to be successful in their own countries. Of course, if too many smart foreigners want to immigrate, there will naturally be a certain annual maximum that will be admitted by increasing the requirements. But if we add to the current annual quota of immigration, the extra requirement that the candidate must be in the top 2 %, then the number of immigrants will decline dramatically, to no more than a few hundred thousands per year, instead of several million. In any case, the point is that the immigrants from the top 2 % will not harm the US. This is the main point. My second point, is that such qualified immigrants would actually create more jobs than they are stealing from Americans. Canada actually already has a point system designed to accept a lot of high quality immigrants. You might think that the Canadian system is a failure, but it is certainly less bad than the American system.

mensarefugee said at March 18, 2008 7:25 PM:

Do you seriously believe that any Jewish scientist would have actually shown any intiative and committment if he was 'forced' to work on a German atom-bomb?
Posted by Kenelm Digby on March 15, 2008 06:38 AM

Gernot Zippe, the inventor of the Zippe centrifuge, which is very important in Uranium refinement make it when he was captured by the Soviets even though he was German. The Soviets were barbarians as much as the Germans - and Germans didnt have any love of them. So, how come he didnt do 'busy-work'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Europeans can hold their own against the Chinese and Indians, as the historical record adequately shows.
Posted by Skot German on March 15, 2008 04:41 PM

Sure, if you start the clock only 300 years ago. Want to look at the 2000 years before that? You might end up thinking China trumps all. If you want to be objective that is.

Even if the Indians and Chinese are superior to Europeans in average intelligence and criminal propensity, they are not Europeans, they are not necessary for our well being and they will cause racial strife.
Posted by Skot German on March 15, 2008 04:41 PM

Being non-white myself, I would not 'let you do what is good for your well-being' at my expense. Period.
But at least that statement is logically consistent.

Marc said at March 18, 2008 8:09 PM:

Randall,

You said:

"They [white people] know they are rationalizing [about racial differences in intelligence]. They know they are lying. They've all agreed to say a group lie. It is like a marker of someone's dedication to their liberal tribe. They show they are willing to pay the price of membership by saying something they don't really believe. Everyone has to morally compromise themself to demonstrate their dedication to the group."

How do you know this? Look, I'm not trying to be difficult on this issue, but you're arguing by assertion here. Do you have any evidence that whites are reading The Bell Curve under their bedcovers at night with a flashlight in secret? Most people just don't think too deeply on these issues, and when they do think about them, they are more than willing to accept the prevailing view and move on.

It's like with Christianity. I don't think that most Christians secretly realize that what they profess to believe (that a Palestinian rose from the dead 2,000 years ago) is highly unlikely, but are willing to go along with it for group membership. They have faith in it. Race egalitarianism is just another form of faith.

Randall Parker said at March 18, 2008 10:59 PM:

Marc,

1) Look at what people do. Look around you for the multi-racial neighborhoods. Why are they rare?

2) Get to know people really well and ask them what they believe in unguarded moments when they want to speak truthfully.

Look, here's Matt Bai writing in the NY Times Magazine on white voters and Obama:

The assumption has always been that a black candidate should perform worse among white voters in states with less racial diversity because those voters are supposedly less enlightened. In fact, the reverse has been true for Obama: in the overwhelmingly white states of Wisconsin and Vermont, for instance, he carried 54 and 60 percent of the white voters respectively, according to exit polls, while in New Jersey he won 31 percent and in Tennessee he won 26 percent. As some bloggers have shrewdly pointed out, Obama does best in areas that have either a large concentration of African-American voters or hardly any at all, but he struggles in places where the population is decidedly mixed.

What do white voters in liberal New Jersey think of blacks? Granted, you can find more fools in Vermont or North Dakota. But the white voting pattern in areas where blacks and whites come into contact shows what those whites believe about blacks.

Marc said at March 19, 2008 12:58 PM:

Randall,

I'm not arguing that white people avoid blacks. I grew up in New Jersey and moved to Baltimore. I saw and, to a degree, participated in the voluntary segregation first-hand.

But if you ask people WHY they are segregating themselves, if you press them hard on it, they will say it is because black culture, or the legacy of slavery, or modern-day racism or some combination of the above causes black people to act in ways they don't particularly want to be around. They will not say that black people are, on average, less intelligent and therefore more prone to criminal behavior.

Randall Parker said at March 19, 2008 6:06 PM:

Marc,

Sure, they won't admit to what they really believe. They will get in trouble for doing that. Again, people are lying. People are lying out of fear.

What is the advantage to each individual if they speak the truth? I can tell you the problems with telling the truth. You can get sued and fired or demoted.

HellKaiserRyo said at March 19, 2008 9:19 PM:

"How do you know this? Look, I'm not trying to be difficult on this issue, but you're arguing by assertion here. Do you have any evidence that whites are reading The Bell Curve under their bedcovers at night with a flashlight in secret? Most people just don't think too deeply on these issues, and when they do think about them, they are more than willing to accept the prevailing view and move on.

It's like with Christianity. I don't think that most Christians secretly realize that what they profess to believe (that a Palestinian rose from the dead 2,000 years ago) is highly unlikely, but are willing to go along with it for group membership. They have faith in it. Race egalitarianism is just another form of faith."

I generally believe that Marc is correct... I do not think most liberal white people conduct much cerebration on the topic and they reiterate what their other liberal friends say. I do count myself as the minority who do believe in this, but refuse to speak about it to other liberals.

Yes, most white people are afraid of other minorities, including liberals. I wonder what would Jeremiah Wright's rotomontade would do to Obama for the voting white population. I know it would not alienate liberal votes as they would prefer Obama over McCain, but "Independents" will start having an aversion to Obama.

"You fail to consider the power of status hierarchies. White liberals put so much effort into defending the fantasy because such defense earns them a place high on the status hierarchy above other whites. That's important to them, because deep in their hearts they know it's no great feat to achieve higher status than blacks"

No, liberals are already high on the status hierarchy. They can condescend to white middle America by driving hybrids and drinking expensive coffee.

Bob Badour said at March 20, 2008 6:20 AM:
No, liberals are already high on the status hierarchy. They can condescend to white middle America by driving hybrids and drinking expensive coffee.

That's all part of the same hierarchy. And how does that address the fact that achieving higher status than blacks is no great feat.

Randall Parker said at March 20, 2008 5:29 PM:

HellKaiserRyo,

We have plenty of indicators for what liberal whites really believe. These indicators point in the direction that they are lying about race.

For example, why do liberal white people adopt Chinese daughters? There are plenty of black babies in need of adoption in the United States. Why don't liberal whites who believe in the power of social environment adopt these black babies? No rationalizations please.

Another example: Educational vouchers. Why do liberal whites shrink from letting inner city black kids go to suburban schools where there's a better environment? Environment is all powerful, right? Why the reticence?

I can go on. But I think the adoption pattern is the most powerful indicator. Total control of a baby available from near birth. Why the racial preference? Could it be that deep down they know that environment is not king?

Marc said at March 21, 2008 7:26 AM:

Randall,

There are actually very few black babies available for adoption in the United States, and slightly more white babies available for adoption. Of the 114,000 U.S. children in foster care, only 12,000 can be considered babies (0-2 years of age). Forty one percent of those are white, and 36 percent of those are black. (AFCARS) So that gives you, what, around 5,000 white babies and 4,000 black babies available for adoption. Not really that many, considering that Americans have been adopting around 20,000 kids from abroad annually throughout the past ten years or so. In other words, the large number of international adoptions is partially a result of 1) the supply in the U.S. not meeting the demand and 2) the parents' desire to not have to worry about a birthmother with a claim to her baby showing up on her doorstep and wanting it back.

Before you point out that there are millions of orphans in Africa and precious few adoptions from there, please realize that international adoption is governed by international laws and that countries that participate must both meet international regulations to ensure that children are not being trafficked, their governments must have laws in place permitting international adoptions, *and* there must be adoption agencies in those countries willing to partner with U.S. based adoption agencies. The only country in Africa right now that I'm aware of that has been trying to put all three in place is Ethiopia, and in 2005, among the 15 or so countries of origin of internationally adopted children, Ethiopia was ranked 7th. Even South Africa - so progressive in terms of law that it allows gay marriage - requires that every effort must be made to place orphans within the country before adoptions outside the country can even be considered. This may change, as the Supreme Court in that country recently permitted (after four years) an African-American couple to adopt an abandoned black baby. But the fact that this case had to go to the Supreme Court says something.

For what it's worth, Guatemala has been ranked third among the top countries of origin for internationally adopted children since 2002, when it overtook South Korea. (China and Russia, respectively, have been ranked 1 and 2 since 2000).

I work for an adoption agency, btw.

Marc said at March 21, 2008 9:45 AM:

I'm sorry, that second sentence should read, "Of the 114,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted..." There are over 500,000 children in foster care, but most have not had their parental rights terminated and will eventually be reunited with their biological families.

Bob Badour said at March 21, 2008 3:14 PM:

Wow. So blacks who make up about 12% of the US population are over-represented among foster children by a factor of 3.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©