5 ms·

This was written by Robert Weissberg. The same one who was dumped by National Review when they determined he was too racist. The one who has written about tha

by mturmon 13y ago

This was written by Robert Weissberg. The same one who was dumped by National Review when they determined he was too racist. The one who has written about that favorite topic of racists, the difference between IQ of whites and other races. What a great source for solid information.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nailer 13y ago
Wait - my race has a bearing on my height, skin colour, susceptibility to disease, proportion of fast to slow twitch muscle fibres, the shape of my nose and eyelids, the amount of various hormones in my blood. Why would it not have a bearing on intelligence?
- makomk 13y ago
  Oh, race might well affect intelligence, it's just that we're pretty sure the effect is so miniscule in comparison to variation within the races that it's not really that interesting unless you're a racist.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    ...if race exists at all. Isn't as true to say 'people have variations in intelligence; some are slightly inheiritable.'
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    In America, the difference between population means in IQ is quite large between some racial groups, up to a standard deviation or 15 IQ points. The relationship holds for SAT, PISA, and pretty much any other measure of cognitive ability
    - DrewRWx 13y ago
      The SAT is a measure in one's ability to study for and take a test.
- mikeash 13y ago
  You have some of it backwards. Your skin color and the shapes of various body parts have bearing on your race, not vice versa. Race is a human construct. That's not to say that there aren't real differences, but merely that it's a categorization based on fairly arbitrary things. Now it turns out that skin color and such in some cases correlates with other, less visible things. But it's not what the determination is based on. For example, the President of the United States is racially black. Genetically, he has equal influence from the "white" side, but racially he is not generally considered to be "half white". For an example from the other direction, consider that Africa contains more human genetic diversity than the rest of the world put together. We would generally expect to find there both the very dumbest and the very smartest of humans, at least for the genetic components of intelligence. It makes no sense to place that whole group into a single "black" race when the people in that group vary so enormously from each other. We can certainly talk about genetic differences in intelligence between different population groups. But "race" is not a good way to come up with the groups to examine.
- crassus 13y ago
  That kind of hypothesis is clearly outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Take an example from a link I posted further down the page, "The Death of Free Speech at Harvard"[1]. A law student wrote the following in a private email: "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances.... I also don't think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores.... I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects..... In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case. Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me." They did pull a Larry Summers on her. The message got forwarded to the Dean, who successfully re-educated her. Here is the statement that the student later put out: "I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my email. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back. I emphatically do not believe that African Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive. I would be grateful to have an opportunity to share my thoughts and to apologize to you in person. Even beforehand, I want to extend an apology to you and to anyone else who has been hurt by my actions." The Dean's statement is a masterpiece of double-think (emphasis mine): "I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to white people. This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice. The circulation of one student's comment does not reflect the views of the school or the overwhelming majority of the members of this community. As news of the email emerged yesterday, I met with the leaders of our Black Law Students Association to discuss how to address the hurt that this has brought to this community.... A troubling event and its reverberations can offer an opportunity to increase awareness, and to foster dialogue and understanding. The BLSA leadership brought this view to our meeting yesterday, and I share their wish to turn this moment into one that helps us make progress in a community dedicated to fairness and justice. Here at Harvard Law School, we are committed to preventing degradation of any individual or group, including race-based insensitivity or hostility. The particular comment in question unfortunately resonates with old and hurtful misconceptions. As an educational institution, we are especially dedicated to exposing to the light of inquiry false views about individuals or groups. I am heartened to see the apology written by the student who authored the email, and to see her acknowledgment of the offense and hurt that the comment engendered...." [1] http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/11/the_slow_death_of_free_speech_.html http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/11/the_slow_d...
wisty 13y ago
> Interestingly, having been charged as "racist," his departmental colleagues, save two conservatives, abandoned him. After someone has been hounded to suicide for saying something unpopular, only crackpots will bother supporting them. And Nagel's criticism was probably valid. Locals usually lend credit too readily to their friends, and outsiders can be more businesslike. Look at native Europeans vs ethnically Jewish bankers, or native Malaysians vs ethnically Chinese bankers. There's a book on it: http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Outsiders-Transformation-Publications-International/dp/0295976136 http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Outsiders-Transformation-Pub... Nagel's argument wasn't anything to do with race, it just said that blacks, like whites and asians, lend too much to their friends. I'd like to hear what the PC Police have to say about Nagel. Probably nothing - they probably know they fucked up, but by their standards it is better to say nothing than to say something which is bad for the cause. An aside, his Handbook of Global Social Policy looks quite good (though I only saw the google reader preview). I can see why it annoys people, though - he focuses on finding compromise solutions. Maybe Weissberg is lying about the fact that Nagel was taken to Federal court over a trumped-up charge of racism, but you'd think that people would actually deny it if that were the case.
- mturmon 13y ago
  It sounds like people are only interested in discussing this case insofar as it advances their own agenda.
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    Yes just ignore the bad man, don't listen to his arguments.
  - wisty 13y ago
    The same can be said about, say, Rodney King. Now, I'm not saying you should listen to Weissberg very often. He's obviously a completely wrong about just about everything. But that doesn't mean he's wrong about political correctness being a bad thing at times. Are you being offensive if you call Weissberg a racist? I think it's a horrible thing to say about someone, but you should still have the right to say it. It's not a base insult, it's an assertion of a fact, and facts can and should be debated.

by mturmon 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nailer 13y ago

Wait - my race has a bearing on my height, skin colour, susceptibility to disease, proportion of fast to slow twitch muscle fibres, the shape of my nose and eyelids, the amount of various hormones in my blood. Why would it not have a bearing on intelligence?

makomk 13y ago
Oh, race might well affect intelligence, it's just that we're pretty sure the effect is so miniscule in comparison to variation within the races that it's not really that interesting unless you're a racist.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  ...if race exists at all. Isn't as true to say 'people have variations in intelligence; some are slightly inheiritable.'
- newnewnew 13y ago
  In America, the difference between population means in IQ is quite large between some racial groups, up to a standard deviation or 15 IQ points. The relationship holds for SAT, PISA, and pretty much any other measure of cognitive ability
  - DrewRWx 13y ago
    The SAT is a measure in one's ability to study for and take a test.
mikeash 13y ago
You have some of it backwards. Your skin color and the shapes of various body parts have bearing on your race, not vice versa. Race is a human construct. That's not to say that there aren't real differences, but merely that it's a categorization based on fairly arbitrary things. Now it turns out that skin color and such in some cases correlates with other, less visible things. But it's not what the determination is based on. For example, the President of the United States is racially black. Genetically, he has equal influence from the "white" side, but racially he is not generally considered to be "half white". For an example from the other direction, consider that Africa contains more human genetic diversity than the rest of the world put together. We would generally expect to find there both the very dumbest and the very smartest of humans, at least for the genetic components of intelligence. It makes no sense to place that whole group into a single "black" race when the people in that group vary so enormously from each other. We can certainly talk about genetic differences in intelligence between different population groups. But "race" is not a good way to come up with the groups to examine.
crassus 13y ago
That kind of hypothesis is clearly outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Take an example from a link I posted further down the page, "The Death of Free Speech at Harvard"[1]. A law student wrote the following in a private email: "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances.... I also don't think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores.... I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects..... In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case. Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me." They did pull a Larry Summers on her. The message got forwarded to the Dean, who successfully re-educated her. Here is the statement that the student later put out: "I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my email. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back. I emphatically do not believe that African Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive. I would be grateful to have an opportunity to share my thoughts and to apologize to you in person. Even beforehand, I want to extend an apology to you and to anyone else who has been hurt by my actions." The Dean's statement is a masterpiece of double-think (emphasis mine): "I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to white people. This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice. The circulation of one student's comment does not reflect the views of the school or the overwhelming majority of the members of this community. As news of the email emerged yesterday, I met with the leaders of our Black Law Students Association to discuss how to address the hurt that this has brought to this community.... A troubling event and its reverberations can offer an opportunity to increase awareness, and to foster dialogue and understanding. The BLSA leadership brought this view to our meeting yesterday, and I share their wish to turn this moment into one that helps us make progress in a community dedicated to fairness and justice. Here at Harvard Law School, we are committed to preventing degradation of any individual or group, including race-based insensitivity or hostility. The particular comment in question unfortunately resonates with old and hurtful misconceptions. As an educational institution, we are especially dedicated to exposing to the light of inquiry false views about individuals or groups. I am heartened to see the apology written by the student who authored the email, and to see her acknowledgment of the offense and hurt that the comment engendered...." [1] http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/11/the_slow_death_of_free_speech_.html http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/11/the_slow_d...

wisty 13y ago

> Interestingly, having been charged as "racist," his departmental colleagues, save two conservatives, abandoned him. After someone has been hounded to suicide for saying something unpopular, only crackpots will bother supporting them. And Nagel's criticism was probably valid. Locals usually lend credit too readily to their friends, and outsiders can be more businesslike. Look at native Europeans vs ethnically Jewish bankers, or native Malaysians vs ethnically Chinese bankers. There's a book on it: http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Outsiders-Transformation-Publications-International/dp/0295976136 http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Outsiders-Transformation-Pub... Nagel's argument wasn't anything to do with race, it just said that blacks, like whites and asians, lend too much to their friends. I'd like to hear what the PC Police have to say about Nagel. Probably nothing - they probably know they fucked up, but by their standards it is better to say nothing than to say something which is bad for the cause. An aside, his Handbook of Global Social Policy looks quite good (though I only saw the google reader preview). I can see why it annoys people, though - he focuses on finding compromise solutions. Maybe Weissberg is lying about the fact that Nagel was taken to Federal court over a trumped-up charge of racism, but you'd think that people would actually deny it if that were the case.

mturmon 13y ago
It sounds like people are only interested in discussing this case insofar as it advances their own agenda.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Yes just ignore the bad man, don't listen to his arguments.
- wisty 13y ago
  The same can be said about, say, Rodney King. Now, I'm not saying you should listen to Weissberg very often. He's obviously a completely wrong about just about everything. But that doesn't mean he's wrong about political correctness being a bad thing at times. Are you being offensive if you call Weissberg a racist? I think it's a horrible thing to say about someone, but you should still have the right to say it. It's not a base insult, it's an assertion of a fact, and facts can and should be debated.