| Friday,
December 15, 2006 First, TITAN, the new Lenovo IBM Z61T
ThinkPad, is not only wicked fast but beautiful, and is working fine; the
problems I had can be overcome and have to do with the preinstalled
software, in particular the SYMANTEC system with its defaults that protect
you from doing anything useful. All this will be covered in the column.
None of it changes the recommendation I made earlier: ThinkPads are the
way to go if you want a Windows only laptop. I have some quibbles, and the
fingerprint recognition software can drive you partly nuts, but those are
quibbles; the machines work and once set up properly Just Work.
======
IQ and Education
Many of my essays are written in response to mail, but sometimes there is
mail on subjects that I was intending to write an essay about anyway. This
is one of those cases. The following mail asks questions I had intended to
address.
Howdy Jerry,
I don't know if you've been following the
latest brouhaha between Steve Sailer http://www.isteve.com/ and Malcom
Gladwell. Essentially Malcom said that car dealers were subconsciously
racist because they charge black customers more while Steve said they
did it on purpose. Steve has been unquestionably combative with Gladwell
since the start of his blog, but this blog-fight really escalated until
ultimately Gladwell calls Sailer a racist.
Here is, with a few minor variations, a
post I put on Steve's blog and I'd appreciate it if you would consider
addressing it (I'm not asking/requiring you post my letter on your blog,
though you can. I'd just like you to address my points if you would):
In the wake of the Sailer/Gladwell brouhaha
I've been reading lots of comments and postings regarding race and
people's response to the concept of inherent racial differences.
One of the feelings I'm getting from a
variety of posters and pundits is that there may well be differences in
racial ability, but what good comes from acknowledging it? The idea
being that only someone who desires to denigrate black people would take
an interest in the topic for the sole purpose of causing discord and
pain to black people and society in general.
In fact, it seems to me that a great many
people who tend to shout "racist" are in this position. There is too
much data for educated people to not understand it.
Part of their thinking seems to be that
differences in IQ tests MUST stem from racism and the poor treatment of
black people. In other words in the realm of nature versus nurture the
answer is obviously nurture and its white peoples'/America's fault that
it is the case.
As such our only recourse as moral people
is to shout down anyone who points out these differences as a racist
(because clearly that can be their only motivation in speaking publicly
about it) and work on ameliorating the root causes of the test score
differences.
One might point out that rising test scores
among the black population over the decades gives their position some
cover and at least raises it as an arguable position.
In fact, my feeling is that the greatest
part of problems within the black community are just that: culturally
based problems stemming at least in part as a reaction to racism.
Whether the shortfall is nature or nurture there is no innate compulsion
that the black community be in the situation that it is now with the
levels of crime/drugs/unemployment/fatherless children/etc.
So, I have reached a quandary. I don't
enjoy being called a racist. It certainly isn't my intention to espouse
racist ideology. I have no desire to purge Amerikkka of "mudbloods" or
other insane thinking.
I gave the example in another thread: Jerry
Pournelle points out that accepting the current reality might help
policy makers to develop strategies that can help inner city blacks more
than our current stop-up-the-ears and yell, "Racist!" course.
Acknowledging the current gap in test scores, whatever their cause,
makes presuming that inner city schools should function as a college
prep that for a large percentage of the students is unrealistic for a
host of reasons. Instead allowing the option of vocational training that
gives students the ability to pursue high paying/skilled blue collar
jobs would be tremendously beneficial for lower IQ people whatever their
race.
At the moment I'm disheartened. I've
allowed myself to feel dirty because I've read so many voices calling me
racist, bigoted, hate-filled and generally evil. I'm considered the sort
of person who should not even be tolerated must less engaged in
discourse.
What is the proper stance to take on these
controversial issues? Can any GOOD come from looking at this situation
and simply saying, "Look, this is the situation as it is now. Whatever
the cause we need to address it forthrightly and try to find a way
forward that deals with reality as it is rather than what we wish it to
be."
Or is such an approach doomed to failure?
Only causing more problems, distrust, anger and social chaos.
Perhaps, in this case, the truth doesn't
set you free. Let's say that the public fully accepts that blacks on
average, at this time -- for whatever reason, are less intelligent than
whites. Is that a good and positive thing? How much damage would that do
to the already fragile psyches (as witnessed by the many social
pathologies within the black community) of black people? What kind of
negative reactions would this cause in other races?
Maybe, since I'm not a policy maker, I
should just close my eyes and mouth the expected pieties. I'm not saying
join in the two minute hate against people like Sailer. But, what good
can come of an average guy on the street doing anything else?
That's my question of the moment.
Gerald Hibbs
Your question is astute and important.
The evidence that mean IQ's differ by racial groups, and that a great
deal of what we do is predisposed if not determined by heredity -- and thus
is influenced by race -- is nearly overwhelming. IQ remains the best single
predictor of success in intellectual activities, and IQ is about
60% determined by heredity. There is room for discussion about that 60%
number, but it's pretty solid.
Your question is: given that mean IQ is different for different racial
groups, so what? Does this have any meaning for public policy, since it is
certainly true that individual members of the racial groups can be way above
or way below the mean (average) IQ of the group? I personally know brilliant
black men and women and abysmally stupid white men and women. I know stupid
Ashkenazi Jews even though so far as I know the Ashkenazim as a group have
the highest mean IQ of any large hereditarily defined group. Since we can't
use the mean IQ when dealing with individuals, what good is it for public
policy? Why is it useful to know that different racial groups have different
mean IQ's?
It is useful to this extent: if you understand that IQ's differ among
racial groups, you will stop expecting equal racial outcomes when there is
fair competiti0n. That is: in activities predicted by IQ we do not expect to
see numbers of each race in the high achievement group proportional to that
race's percentage in the population; and the fact that we see unequal
outcomes will not be taken as prima facie evidence that the measurements of
success are unfair.
We do not expect 12% of the physics professors to be black, nor do we
expect that only 2 or 3% of them will be Ashkenazi Jews: or at least we
shouldn't expect that result, and if we do see it, we are justified in
concluding that there is something other than competence at physics at work
here.
Taking the opposite view: that there must be numbers proportionate to the
population frequencies among all the professions, leads to increased numbers
of marginally competent people in those professions. This isn't a "racist"
statement; it's inevitable.
If we insisted that basketball teams reflect the racial composition of
the United States, with proportionate numbers of Asians in NBA teams, and
concluded that because there are so few Asian professional basketball
players the NBA is racist, you would think us mad.
Part Two
This is not Lake Wobegon. Half the children are below average. Half the
children cannot benefit from a traditional college education. Half the
children cannot benefit from "a world class university preparatory
education." The good news is that they don't need one.
College is not a good place to acquire skills and skill sets. Skills are
taught by practice, repetition, drill and kill. They are not taught by
education, which is training in ways of thinking, manipulating abstract
symbols, doing mathematics and statistical inferences. At least half the
populace will never be very good at manipulating abstract symbols. At least
half the population will never understand statistical inferences (real
statistical inference including understanding the fit of the mathematical
model to the population, not just mechanically cranking out numbers with an
ANOVA program). At least half the population is not smart enough to be
physicians. At least half the population is not smart enough to be
registered nurses.
The good news is that it doesn't matter all that much. People not smart
enough to benefit from colleges did very well building this country. The
American people are smart enough to have built a First World economy, and to
manage it quite well. This isn't a country built by eggheads, and the most
eggheaded president we ever had, Woodrow Wilson, didn't do a very good job
of keeping us out of the Great War nor of doing anything useful with the
victory. The Jacobin-inspired patchwork built out of Wilsonian idealism
didn't fare very well or for very long. Eggheads build their model worlds in
their heads, and act as if their models are real, and soon enough they are
trying to force people to act as if the model were true.
There is a place in this world for the children who are below average.
They won't become eggheads, but they certainly can become useful citizens.
They won't profit from an education that makes them apprentice eggheads;
they would do far better at being apprentice plumbers, electricians,
carpenters, construction workers, machine shop workers, truck drivers,
soldiers and sailors, insurance salespeople, store clerks, and for that
matter teachers of those skills. What they need is training in the kind of
work they can do.
Part Three
The problem is that the eggheads seem to have convinced everyone that the
only thing worth doing is to become an egghead, and if one never gets to be
an egghead one's life is ruined. And since at least half the
population is never going to be successful at eggheadery, at least half the
population is doomed to failure.
The egghead notion that the only thing that make life worth living is to
become an egghead, and the egghead notion that all people are equal and have
equal capabilities to become eggheads, has produced a terrible situation in
which, in the mad race to leave no child behind, leaves a good part of the
population behind. We have built a school system whose only purpose is to
turn out apprentice eggheads, and by doing that we have structured a system
in which most of the potential eggheads are shortchanged while the rest of
the population is doomed to failure.
This is insane.
As to why the schools can't even produce good eggheads, it's obvious to
anyone studying the data -- something our lamebrained eggheads
manqué
have never learned to do. The simple truth is that learning to be an
eggheads isn't easy, and requires teaching methods that just won't work with
at least half of the population -- yet the classes are carefully designed to
eliminate "tracking" and to guarantee that at least half those in the
classroom with our budding young eggheads are below average, not able to
profit much from egghead training. And since teachers hate to fail, they
discover that if they teach the eggheads much eggheadery the rest of their
students will fail dismally, they soon put all their effort into the
majority in the classroom -- that is, into teaching them a few simple facts
and some ways to make use of those facts; and into drilling them until they
learn to pass tests.
And the real potential eggheads in that classroom contemplate suicide
from boredom.
The simple truth is that smart people do better in the company of smart
people, and this is true whether they have gathered together to learn, or to
write computer programs, or design atomic bombs, or devise policies for
insurance by examining tons of statistical data. We all know this, because,
of course, nearly everyone who has read this far is an egghead. We all know
that when we are set to do something, it's a lot easier if everyone in the
group can be assumed to understand simple instructions and to keep up; when
we don't have to set the pace to someone who's a really nice chap but just
doesn't get it very well and has to have it explained over and over again.
Some of you reading this may not have any notion of what I am talking
about because you were fortunate enough never to have to do intellectually
challenging work with average people in your work group. Blessings to you,
but you'll just have to use your imagination. The rest of you know precisely
what I am talking about.
Part Four
So what has all this to do with race and IQ?
Just this: if the world functions better when eggheads are educated and
the rest are taught skills, then we must identify the eggheads and move them
to education systems designed for eggheads, and the ordinary people into
education systems designed to teach practical skills like automobile repair,
electrical installation to meet building codes, etc., etc. And when we do
that, then if it is true - as alas and regrettably it is -- that the mean
IQ's of different races are not only unequal but in some cases spectacularly
unequal -- we will find that the racial composition of our two groups is
spectacularly unlike the distribution of those races in the general
population. Our egghead group will be topheavy with Asians and Ashkenazi
Jews, then whites, and then Latino and Blacks. It will be just the opposite
over in the skill set group: sure, lots of whites, but far fewer Asians, and
far more Latinos and Blacks.
This is inevitable. It is inevitable because IQ is the best predictor we
have of success in the egghead profession. It will be true because the
ability to manipulate symbols is unequally distributed across the races.
And since the ability to manipulate symbols is not equal, there are going
to be many who simply cannot understand the argument and will insist that if
the various races are not equally represented in the two groups there must
be discrimination going on. And of course they will be right: there is
discrimination, but it is discrimination by ability to manipulate symbols,
and because that ability is not distributed equally among the races, the
result we obtained follows as the night the day, and there is not one damned
thing we can do about it except to devise tests less useful at predicting
success. Which is to negate the point of the enterprise.
Now: up to now I have simplified by pretending that there are only two
main groups here, those fit to be eggheads and those fit to be almost
everything else.
But the fact of the matter is that those two groups are themselves
divisible. Moreover, some people have both capabilities: they have both the
smarts to learn symbol manipulation, and the temperament to learn skills.
And, alas, some people have neither and aren't likely to profit from any
general education system we can devise: they have "special needs", indeed,
indeed, and they aren't going to fit into any mainstream, and to the extent
that we try to put them in with the mainstream we shortchange the vast
majority for a tiny benefit for a group that isn't likely to be useful in
building a First World civilization to begin with. These are legal issues,
and a lot of eggheads make a lot of money manipulating the system, insisting
on "equal rights" and "mainstreaming" and then -- suprise! -- insisting that
the general education system change itself to accommodate those who were
only asking to be treated like everyone else. And so it goes.
Part Five and Conclusion
I am not sure there is a conclusion. It's pretty clear, if you study the
data, that eggheads are best educated by and among other eggheads. Worse,
the brightest eggheads thrive when put among other birds of that feather.
It's clear enough that this can be carried too far.
How we divide our school system; how many "tracks" we have; these are
matters for public discussion. Of course they are not much discussed because
the education establishment is probably the best example of Pournelle's Iron
Law of Bureaucracy ever seen, and the way it is organized at present is very
suitable to Their Highnesses who run the system. But since it is producing
such disgraceful results that even the smartest eggheads can't hide how
abysmally bad it has become, we may one day get the chance to make a
redesign.
If that day ever comes, we will need to take account of all the data: of
what we know, not just what we wish were true.
The truth may not set you free; but it's pretty clear that ignoring the
truth leads to absurdities like No Child Left Behind. We all know the only
way that to be sure no child is left behind is to be certain that no
children get ahead.
And making sure that no children get ahead is to abandon the notion that
our children will be able to sustain, much less, rebuild the First World
Civilization that we want for them -- and for that matter, for ourselves
when we get old and dotty.
========
Interestingly enough, for those who believe IQ is the bunk:
HEALTH | December 16, 2006
On the Brink: In Raising the World's I.Q., the Secret's in the Salt By
DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Kazakhstan's iodized salt campaign is an example of how a country can
achieve a remarkable public health success.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html?
ex=1166936400&en=c069287bf7febb20&ei=5070&emc=eta1
The author may not know it, but he has said: IQ is important; and a mean
15 point IQ difference is an intolerable disadvantage to a nation. Both of
which are true, but not part of the received wisdom of which the New York
Times generally partakes. But here is real world data beating up on the
received wisdom.
Friday TOP
Current Mail
|
