5 ms·

The Bell Curve (1994) talked about the intellectual stratification that is happening in society. The author and resulting research was called "racist" and has b

The Bell Curve (1994) talked about the intellectual stratification that is happening in society. The author and resulting research was called "racist" and has been shouted down time and time again but much of what you say is discussed in the book. He shows correlation between intelligence and [income, parent's socioeconomic status (SES), job security/unemployment, educational attainment, and tons of other things]. The data is sporadic pre-WW2 but complete and well-validated afterwards. He avoids drawing conclusions or prescribing solutions. All of it is interesting and some is compelling, but the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in "polite" company. The interesting thing about the book.. to reduce the "racist" attacks, the author only looked at white people throughout the bulk of the book.

gxs 10y ago
Wow, fascinating, thanks for the book reference. Reading the wikipedia article made me uncomfortable - I doubt a book like that would ever be written today.
peteretep 10y ago
> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a difference - on average across the whole population - where blue people are 10% less intelligent and 10% more violent. What's next? Are you justified in preferring to hire green people? No. Are you justified in having greens-only policies? Of course not, that's not how averages work. Is there any basis for any kind of segregation? Any basis for any color-based policies? No. But you can be sure that there will be green people trying to use these studies to show themselves as superior, as a basis for discrimination, for popularist politics, and all the other associated bullshit. It's precisely because there's almost no practical use for studies like these, but they are absolutely pounced upon by racists and opportunists, that they're 'generally forbidden to be discussed in "polite" company'.
- mrmffh 10y ago
  Ignoring reality is the worst possible option. Regarding your assertion, judging an individual by their collective group average is wrong. I'm a big proponent of research in this area - because I want to change it. For e.g. Black Americans have an IQ, on average, 15 points lower than white Americans. I want more research on this area, so it can be improved. Calling people racists (without evidence) shuts down any meaningful conversation, and hurts those who need the most help.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    > I want more research on this area, so it can be > improved Somehow it sounds more obviously ridiculous when you rephrase it and start looking for "solutions" to improving the intelligence of all white people. Small differences between very large, heterogenous populations gives you virtually no predictive power about individuals or how to help them, but do facilitate subtle and overt racism, however well-meaning it might be.
    - mrmffh 10y ago
      On what evidence can you say that more research won't/can't help? [1 SD is not a 'small difference'. (2 SD's if you compare to Ashkenazic Jews).]
      - peteretep 10y ago
        > On what evidence can you say that more research > won't/can't help On what basis can you say it will? These studies have known drawbacks in that they serve as a rallying point for all sorts of discrimination masquerading as high-minded discourse, and we're yet to see a benefit so far, so the burden of proof here is on you. At least part of the problem here is given two children / job-applicants / defendants / whatever, who are absolutely identical in every way except for a specific cosmetic phenotype, what possible justification is there for treating them differently based on correlation between that phenotype and some other characteristic over a large population?

gxs 10y ago

Wow, fascinating, thanks for the book reference. Reading the wikipedia article made me uncomfortable - I doubt a book like that would ever be written today.

peteretep 10y ago

> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a difference - on average across the whole population - where blue people are 10% less intelligent and 10% more violent. What's next? Are you justified in preferring to hire green people? No. Are you justified in having greens-only policies? Of course not, that's not how averages work. Is there any basis for any kind of segregation? Any basis for any color-based policies? No. But you can be sure that there will be green people trying to use these studies to show themselves as superior, as a basis for discrimination, for popularist politics, and all the other associated bullshit. It's precisely because there's almost no practical use for studies like these, but they are absolutely pounced upon by racists and opportunists, that they're 'generally forbidden to be discussed in "polite" company'.

mrmffh 10y ago
Ignoring reality is the worst possible option. Regarding your assertion, judging an individual by their collective group average is wrong. I'm a big proponent of research in this area - because I want to change it. For e.g. Black Americans have an IQ, on average, 15 points lower than white Americans. I want more research on this area, so it can be improved. Calling people racists (without evidence) shuts down any meaningful conversation, and hurts those who need the most help.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > I want more research on this area, so it can be > improved Somehow it sounds more obviously ridiculous when you rephrase it and start looking for "solutions" to improving the intelligence of all white people. Small differences between very large, heterogenous populations gives you virtually no predictive power about individuals or how to help them, but do facilitate subtle and overt racism, however well-meaning it might be.
  - mrmffh 10y ago
    On what evidence can you say that more research won't/can't help? [1 SD is not a 'small difference'. (2 SD's if you compare to Ashkenazic Jews).]
    - peteretep 10y ago
      > On what evidence can you say that more research > won't/can't help On what basis can you say it will? These studies have known drawbacks in that they serve as a rallying point for all sorts of discrimination masquerading as high-minded discourse, and we're yet to see a benefit so far, so the burden of proof here is on you. At least part of the problem here is given two children / job-applicants / defendants / whatever, who are absolutely identical in every way except for a specific cosmetic phenotype, what possible justification is there for treating them differently based on correlation between that phenotype and some other characteristic over a large population?