6 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Passion guided by reason's avatar

Chris, I want to warn you that you are treading on dangerous ground. Your writing here and elsewhere reveals a very capable and rational mind. You have a tendency to follow the evidence.

That can get you into trouble. This is a minefield. You have intellectual tools which allow you to evaluate your erstwhile colleague as factually wrong about his crime assertion and therefore likely swayed by racial bias or stereotypes. I will warn you that if you start taking a strictly scientific and apolitical approach to investigating this subject, you will likely come across some evidence which is discomforting. No, not silly KKK or neo-Nazi nonsense, I know you would sift that garbage out quickly. I mean scientific evidence which even viewed in context, is troublesome.

However, I will respond to your thought experiment.

Hypothetically, suppose that your researches were to convince you that there are significant differences in objectively and competently measured IQ between some population groups, which cannot be explained by test bias.

Then, as CAS says, that aggregated finding would still tell us nothing about individuals, because the differences within each population group are by the same objective measurements far greater than any group level differences between statistical means, medians or modes. It should have absolutely no effect on how you treat other individuals, period, end of story.

Also, as CAS and Steve indicate, differences between population groups do NOT inherently imply any significant genetic component. Differences in environment and culture would need to be considered - as you have observed in working with Asian ethnicity. The differences could be 100% due to environment and 0% due to genetics (hypothetically), so any such evidence might be just a snapshot in time, describing today's world but not the future.

The area where you might run into trouble is in partially questioning the currently politically attributed causes of other observed differences between population groups. If at the statistical level of aggregate analysis, there were differences in cognitive ability (from whatever causes), then some differences in outcome between groups (at that same statistical level) might not be entirely due to present day discrimination. Such group level differences in cognitive ability could lead to even a system which is absolutely fair to each individual (entirely based on individual merit, without any group prejudice whatsoever), yet which produces differences at the group statistical level because the groups do not have identical characteristics.

So for example, if some differences in cognitive ability exist at the population group level (again, for any reason), then the wildly disproportionate representation of Ashkenazi Jews in certain fields might be in some part related to their tendency to score very well on IQ tests at the statistical level, rather than being entirely due to pro-Jewish (or anti-Gentile) discrimination. Or you might compare Franco-Americans and Russo-Americans.

In short - such group level differences would require no change of course for political philosophies based on treating all individuals fairly and with the same rights, like traditional liberalism. I see no implications for Martin Luther King's direction, for one example. At most, some interventions might be targeted towards enriching the environments (or other factors known or as yet unknown) which might statistically increase the average cognitive functioning of disadvantaged groups (as one prong of a larger effort). For two examples, substantially bad nutrition, and exposure to violent crime nearby, seem to have negative effects (at the statistical level) on cognitive development; improving those factors might improve outcomes, over time. (And of course to the degree that racial bias creates or sustains either factor, it can be appropriately confronted as needed). This kind of extra focus would just be a refinement of the civil rights concepts, not a change in course.

But this hypothetical group difference, if you were to conclude that it existed, might cause some loss of traction for certain more recent political narratives, such as that espoused by Ibram X Kendi. Kendi explicitly reasons that there are only two possible explanation for different outcomes for Blacks and other racial groups - genetic differences and discrimination. Since genetic differences HAVE to be taken off the table as too awful to consider, that prove in his mind that it any differences in outcomes today must be produced 100% by discrimination, QED. This kind of binary reasoning might be threatened by your hypothetical.

From what I've seen of your writing, I would hardly expect you to jump to any conclusions, but rather to evaluate evidence as honestly as possible. And I'm warning you that such an approach is not welcome in many progressive circles and their periphery; no matter how clear you describe your explorations, it will "sound similar to" things which are highly emotionally evocative for some others, and you will tend to be treated as if you are saying things you have tried to be clear that you are not saying. Other people will sometimes assume falsely that X must imply Y, even if you don't say or agree with that implication. Fair warning. If you do continue to research your questions, I'll be glad to hear your results tho.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

Everything you are saying here was in my little post. If I didn't call out the difference between median intelligence and individual intelligence it's because I am cognizant of my audience; I don't need to. If there are three not-fully-congruent normal distributions for the intelligence of the three major races, they are vastly overlapped.

Don't expect me to take very seriously the denial of any role of genetics in intelligence, and if you are implying that I recognize no environmental role in how well one does on intelligence tests then you are verging on insulting me. A child who grows up in a house full of books and other stimuli has an advantage over one who grows up with a TV set that is never off and checkout-counter newspapers the only reading material.

And frankly conforming to progressive ideology is not much of a priority for me. I would not post what I did in a WaPo blog or on Facebook because I would be called all kinds of names by sloppy readers and sloppier thinkers. Honestly, I am deeply disenchanted with the current state of progressivism with its "woke" horseshit and its virtue signaling. There is tyranny there and "trans" activists are doing enormous harm in their determination to swell their ranks.

I mentioned Asians. The high achievements of Asian-Americans are not reflected in my experience here, where hardly anyone has the brains to close a door he had to open to walk through.

Expand full comment
Peaceful Dave's avatar

My father had read all of Shakespeare by the age of twelve. I have no memory of him, he died when I was three, but he left a library behind. I sought to know him by knowing his influences, his books and his writing. A sad substitute for growing up under his influence, but it was a gift.

My wife grew up where such things were not valued. A little girl with no shoes also has no books. But when she came to America she knew what her daughters must have. While I could accept that they might not accel in everything I made it clear that they had better not being a report card home with a comment that they were not performing to their capability, she just wanted to see "A"s. She became that Asian mom in America.

I didn't get to know Vietnamese people while I was in Vietnam, but I know quite a few in America. The name Nguyen was a common one in engineering departments and among super technicians. Principle design engineers who's journey to America began as boat people.

The less technically inclined are often astute business people. The large successful Asian markets here are owned by Vietnamese people. They do what the Chinese in Southeast Asia did. Sowell discussed it in his book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". More about seeking opportunity where they find it than race.

Crap! I wandered as I wrote on my phone when I should be sleeping.

Expand full comment
Passion guided by reason's avatar

Wow. Can we reset and reparse, Chris?

How would you respond if you assumed (correctly) that

(1) I have read a number of your writings and appreciated them, earning my respect FWIW. I was feeling happy to have a chance to explore some concepts with somebody I respect. I did not expect your reaction, tho.

(2) I was largely agreeing with you, not disagreeing. I may emphasize a different facet, or phrase something my own way, but that doesn't mean I'm an adversary.

(3) I was neither denying any role for genetics, nor imputing that you were denying environmental factors; just not thing existing in my mind (however clumsily conveyed)

(4) Having read other work by you, I already know you are not a modern neo-progressive, and that we share a disenchantment from what it has become. However, the issues of intelligence and population groups is an exceptionally explosive subject, and can cause problems even for non-progressives, so I wanted to note that.

Clearly, I have badly miscommunicated and apologize for that. I would appreciate if you could quote what I said that led you to believe (1) that I was denying any role for genetics, or (2) that I thought (almost insultingly) that you were denying any role for environment. I'd like to learn to avoid whatever I wrote that came across so far from my intent (I'm in what my spouse calls "debug mode"). Sometimes our words can be interpreted in ways we did not intend, so we need to learn how to avoid that when possible. That's my task.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

"The differences could be 100% due to environment and 0% due to genetics (hypothetically)"

The last word doesn't mitigate it.

OK, sorry if I sounded like I was bristling. I wasn't, but I see how it could read that way. Fair do's.

Expand full comment
Passion guided by reason's avatar

OK, thanks. The last word was not meant to mitigate anything, but to explain that I was presenting a hypothetical rather than an assertion. Read it in the spirit of "EVEN IF the differences were 100% environmental... certain issues remain". I appreciate your explaining; I do not always anticipate all the ways something I write can be interpreted, so this is helpful.

Expand full comment