Matthew Yglesias (November 27, 2007) - Blame Affirmative Action (Domestic Policy)

Is he willing to give up special anti-descrimination laws for homosexuals as well?

Posted by gregor | November 27, 2007 9:32 AM

I don't even buy the framing of affirmative action on offer here.

IIRC, real affirmative action (not the straw man Andrew points to) is when you have two applicants who are *both* qualified and then you choose the under-represented class. Thus, there is no issue of "inferiority" at all.

Posted by Joel | November 27, 2007 9:34 AM

The conservative position, 1965: "Shut up, ni**er."

The conservative position, 2007: "Stop talking about being black. It's your fault for being immoral, and inferior. Also, vote Republican, because Democrats take you for granted."

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 27, 2007 9:37 AM

I still don't understand your arguments about racial inferiority Matt. This post and your previous logs were pretty much nonsensical. What does affirmative action have to do with the scientific debate over what role genetics plays in intelligence?

Posted by freddiemac | November 27, 2007 9:42 AM

"real affirmative action (not the straw man Andrew points to) is when you have two applicants who are *both* qualified and then you choose the under-represented class. Thus, there is no issue of "inferiority" at all."

Not sure what alternate reality this "real affirmative action" inabits. The real world segment where AA is most used (college admissions) applicants of East/South Asian heritage end up getting the shaft, despite (on average) much higher grades and test scores. Were you to get rid of AA in college admissions, the percentage of East/South Asian students would increase significantly.

Posted by Adam | November 27, 2007 9:44 AM

Andrew Sullivan is at his worst when discussing African-American issues. He's totally tone deaf. The idea that the American discussion of the supposed inferiority of black people is something that came about because of Affirmative Action is absurd.

He should go back and read more Theodore Bilbo.

Posted by Ikram | November 27, 2007 9:47 AM

Freddie Mac it has nothing to do with it, that's Matt's point. Andrew's been on about the liberal oppression of the courageous and bold Galileo's who argue that black people tend to be dumb. Matt questioned why he (and Will Saleton, another author I like) are so focused on this position when it 1. is highly offensive, 2. puts them against the vast majority of scientific research and 3. has no policy implications whatsoever since even a real difference intellectual capacity between "average white man" and "average black man" wouldn't tell you a think about the guy standing in front of you. Sullivan responded that it's because of Affirmative Action.

Posted by aleks | November 27, 2007 9:48 AM

freddiemac,

Try actually reading the post. Matt isn't making the link between affirmative action and the debate over what role genetics plays in intelligence, Sullivan is, as a way of attacking affirmative action.

Perhaps your post was intended for Andrew who loves/is obsessed by these issues but of course doesn't permit the posting of comments to his blog.

Wonder why.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 9:51 AM

Not only does Andrew misuse the phrase "beg the question" (but I won't suggest it's due to any inherited lack of intelligence on his part), but he asserts a false premise, i.e., that the only purpose of affirmative action is to counterbalance disadvantages that are thought to be somehow unfair. But that's not the case. As the Michigan cases showed, the goal of affirmative action can also be diversity for it's own sake: i.e., college students attending a school that is -- for whatever reason -- all-white (or nearly so) would suffer from lack of exposure to people with different life experiences and/or from different cultures. That would still remain true even if all presumptively "unfair" disadvantages -- genetics, societal discrimination, etc. -- were eliminated.

Posted by Glenn | November 27, 2007 9:53 AM

> The real world segment where AA is most used
> (college admissions) applicants of East/South
> Asian heritage end up getting the shaft, despite
> (on average) much higher grades and test scores.

So do applicants from New York City. So do applicants from large high-achieving high schools in suburbs of major metro areas. Harvard will take at most one student from New Trier outside Chicago even if the next kid in line has an identical record with 1 pt lower on the SAT, but it will snap up a kid from rural Kansas with the same test scores as the New Trier reject. Whaddaboutit? The idea that college admissions is some sort of pure meritocracy is ridiculous. And that's not to even mention the kid with the 500 SATs and B- high school average who is admitted because his parents have the _potential_ to donate $20 million or more.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 27, 2007 9:56 AM

Andrew is essentially right, since affirmative action is the main public policy issue affected by this topic. If empirical studies demonstrate that black under-performance is due to something other than systematic racism and economic inequality -- and racism and inequality are the rationales for affirmative action -- than there is no rationale to continue the policy. You ignore two points here though.

The first is that there are some proponents of affirmative action who are in favor of it precisely because they think blacks are of "inferior genetic stock", to use your invidious phrase. Few share this view publicly, for obvious reasons, but the former president of my alma mater, Fran Lawrence, once let it slip:

"The average S.A.T.'s for African-Americans is 750," Mr. Lawrence said at the Camden faculty meeting, referring to Scholastic Assessment Tests. "Do we set standards in the future so we don't admit anybody? Or do we deal with a disadvantaged population that doesn't have that genetic, hereditary background to have a higher average?"

The second point you ignore is the question of who actually benefits from the current affirmative action policies? Let's set aside for a moment the reasons why there is such a huge gap between blacks and whites on average standardized test scores. Are the blacks liberals purport to want to help actually benefiting from this? That doesn't appear to be the case, for a few reasons, including:

Affirmative action often sets blacks up for failure, by putting them in elite schools where they can't keep up instead of lower-ranked schools where they can.

When affirmative action steers unqualified candidates into professional schools, the victims are usually blacks, e.g., the black female patients of Dr. Patrick Chavis

Affirmative action breeds resentment and doubt about the abilities of even highly-qualified blacks.

The blacks who get affirmative action spots are often half-white, affluent, or foreign (African or Caribbean).

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 9:59 AM

It's always very touching when those against policies that help the minorities couch their arguments in their concern that such policies will actually hurt those that they are designed to benefit. Always bring tears to my eyes when I hear a racist say that if you give opportunities to blacks on the basis of their minority status, the successful blacks will be tarred for life.

Posted by gregor | November 27, 2007 10:12 AM

If empirical studies demonstrate that black under-performance is due to something other than systematic racism and economic inequality

How on earth would you control for that?
You can't.
So you are left with a moral judgement.
I think the statis quo works fine. But I also have no issue freeing universities to make their own judgements. Let them test on ability to pay or admit for the sake of diversity. Decentralise and multiply the policy approach. There is no one right answer to this.

Posted by Northern Observer | November 27, 2007 10:16 AM

Oh, I disagree strongly with this bleak assessment of our nation's ability to blame problems on race.

I am fully confident that were all affirmative action programs to be completely abolished, Our Nation would fully be capable of moving on to a *new* way of making up obsessions over black people.

Posted by El Cid | November 27, 2007 10:22 AM

The question is whether we should see this gap as primarily driven by black people's allegedly inferior genetic stock, or by persistent economic and social inequities.

Or driven in good measure by something entirely different. Read John McWhorter's Losing the Race.

Posted by John-Paul Pagano | November 27, 2007 10:23 AM

"I am fully confident that were all affirmative action programs to be completely abolished, Our Nation would fully be capable of moving on to a *new* way of making up obsessions over black people."

If AA were scrapped, we could stop talking about how blacks score so low on IQ tests and just talk about how they commit crimes at 7 times the rate of whites.

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 10:24 AM

If AA were scrapped, we could stop talking about how blacks score so low on IQ tests and just talk about how they commit crimes at 7 times the rate of whites.
Posted by Harry

My faith is restored.

Posted by El Cid | November 27, 2007 10:29 AM

"Everybody agrees that African-Americans, on average, score lower on IQ tests than do white people. The question is whether we should see this gap as primarily driven by black people's allegedly inferior genetic stock, or by persistent economic and social inequities."

Hey, let's try changing a few words and see what this looks like:

Everybody agrees that Jews are under-represented in the NBA. The question is whether we should see this gap as primarily driven by Jewish people's allegedly inferior genetic stock, or by persistent economic and social inequities.

Since we're all the same in terms of genetic abilities, it must be those social and economic inequities (maybe Jews' schools have too few black students to sharpen their Hebrew classmates' skills in b-ball?).

Matt, as a Jew and an NBA fan, you should start advocating an affirmative action policy to get some kosher blood into the league.

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 10:30 AM

I think the point here is that, so long as you exclude a priori the possiblity that there are any inate difference between blacks and Asians, (AA is pretty much a wash for non-Asian whites.) that leaves only racism as an explaination for disparate numbers, and you don't have to prove racism anymore. You can just assume it.

Denying any possiblity of inante differences, then, is a way for advocates of racial preferences to avoid the inconvenience of having to actually prove discrimination, before demanding that something be done about it.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 27, 2007 10:30 AM

C'mon people. Societal discrimination went the way of the dinosaur back in the ... 1990s. Rendering innocent people to countries that engage in torture based solely on how they look does not count as societal discrimination. Nor does the Post-Katrina response. (How about all those casinos being built on the gulf coast - Atlantic City of the south).

While we're at abolishing affirmative action, let's get rid of hate crimes legislation and don't ask, don't tell, too.

Jackasses.

Posted by sy | November 27, 2007 10:32 AM

cranky obsever cuts right to the chase: the idea that colleges were sitting around in some edenic state, picking the absolute best students regardless of any other considerations, is complete and total crap.

which is a good description of the stupid blitherings of Fred at 9:59. i have no idea what fred's alma mater was, but it's clear to me that Fred didn't get in on intellectual merit, that's for damn sure.

Affirmative action reached colleges, of course, because the diploma is a ticket to higher-paying jobs, but affirmative action started as a means of making sure that good old boys didn't keep hiring good old boys on government contracts.

the need for affirmative action started when the "radical republicans" were undercut in their belief that the treasonous southern states shouldn't simply restore their old power structure after the civil war; had we actually provided 40 acres and a mule, we wouldn't need affirmative action.

Posted by howard | November 27, 2007 10:36 AM

And since there is no difference in poverty rates between blacks and whites, and we have pretty much equal schooling across the board, it becomes difficult to prove that black students face any disadvantages when compared with white students if one does not make the assumption that all races are exactly genetically equal. Certainly it is that assumption that leads people to think this country has a history of racial discrimination whose roots presist.

On a more serious note, Glenn, the fight over "beg the question" has been fought and those of us that like the old meaning have lost. While I doubt I would ever use the phrase in the new sense, the fact is that the new sense is the overwhelmingly acccepted sense, and philosophy professors and classicists do not have the kind of control over language to insist that to be correct people have to use the phrase like it was used in the past.

Posted by Lon | November 27, 2007 10:46 AM

davido and aleks,

I rarely click through the link, my apologies. Especially with Andrew Sullivan, as he is quite droll. All is clear now, thank you.

Posted by freddiemac | November 27, 2007 10:49 AM

Cranky Observer

"The idea that college admissions is some sort of pure meritocracy is ridiculous. And that's not to even mention the kid with the 500 SATs and B- high school average who is admitted because his parents have the _potential_ to donate $20 million or more.

Not claiming that it is. But the question remains, and related to Harry's NBA analogy above: the notion that every ethnic group evolved with precisely the same characteristics, and all have exactly the potential (on average)to achieve and succeed in any field of human activity strikes me as being empirically false, or at least there needs to be some empirical data to back it up if we're justifying state discrimination (however noble the goal). If there is relevant data that geographic, economic, racial, religious etc. diversity in education is a benefit to everyone, then AA certainly has some merit to it.

Posted by Adam | November 27, 2007 10:54 AM

> and related to Harry's NBA analogy above: the
> notion that every ethnic group evolved with
> precisely the same characteristics, and all have
> exactly the potential (on average)to achieve and
> succeed in any field of human activity

Harry's "NBA and the Jews" analogy might have more force if there hadn't been a time when (1) players of Jewish ethic origin dominated basketball (2) players of Jewish ethnic origin were discriminated against in what (meagre) professional and semi-professional opportunities basketball then offered. But there was, and they were. Oops.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 27, 2007 11:00 AM

Were you to get rid of AA in college admissions, the percentage of East/South Asian students would increase significantly.

This is too fuzzy to evaluate. It can be interpreted as, "Because of AA, a significant number of well-qualified Asians:

1. aren't in college at all
2. aren't at a college whose status is commensurate with their qualifications
3. aren't at their first choice of college
4. aren't at Harvard

It is dishonest to imply 1, when 3 or 4 are probably closer to the point.

Posted by apm | November 27, 2007 11:06 AM

Oh Harry, you look so foolish!

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 11:07 AM

"Harry's "NBA and the Jews" analogy might have more force if there hadn't been a time when (1) players of Jewish ethic origin dominated basketball (2) players of Jewish ethnic origin were discriminated against in what (meagre) professional and semi-professional opportunities basketball then offered. But there was, and they were. Oops."

Cranky, just so we are clear:

Are you claiming that there is discrimination against Jews in the NBA today, and that's why there are no Jews in the NBA? Is this discrimination policy enforced by David Stern (who of course is Jewish)? Or are you claiming that Jews are held back today by discrimination they suffered in the 1920s?

Your comment would have more force if you could answer any of those questions in the affirmative. But I'm guessing you can't. "Oops".

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 11:11 AM

apm,

You arguement would have more weight if the U.S. did not function under the assumption that the dumbest student at Duke University is smarter than the smartest student at NC State. As long as not getting into elite schools cuts off job opprotunities, then people are going to be resentful of AA.

Posted by superdestroyer | November 27, 2007 11:16 AM

The affirmative action question is largely academic. The Supreme Court barely upheld affirmative action with O'Connor as the swing justice, and Kennedy is against it. In other words: it's just a matter of time before it's gone.

I do agree that affirmative action has a somewhat corrosive effect, although not the way Sullivan contends. I think affirmative action justifies a lot of white racism, whining, and victimhood. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "he only got the job because he's black" from white people.

Assuming for a second that I am right, the next questions are:

(1) Does it make sense to toss out a potentially beneficial policy just because it makes whites more racist?

(2) Will getting rid of affirmative action actually mitigate white racism/victimhood, or will they just find something else to blame (illegal immigrants, etc.)?

The answer to both questions is probably "no." The reality is that affirmative action once got African Americans into the system that will now be excluded from the system. Its elimination might improve some part of the white working class pyche in this country, but I seriously doubt it will magically improve the mindset of African Americans to know that the road to success just got that much harder.

Posted by owenz | November 27, 2007 11:16 AM

"As long as not getting into elite schools cuts off job opprotunities [sic], then people are going to be resentful of AA."

Since college admission is an experiment without a control, this assertion cannot be tested.

Posted by Joel | November 27, 2007 11:23 AM

(1) players of Jewish ethic origin dominated basketball

Perhaps in an era where black American's were absolutely discriminated against in basketball, and in most other areas of life as well?

apm,

"This is too fuzzy to evaluate"

College application broken down by ethnicitiy measured against positions offered/scholarships awarded broken down by ethnicity vs. the admissions criteria broken down by ethnicity? Those numbers aren't fuzzy at all, nor especially difficult to come by.

"2. aren't at a college whose status is commensurate with their qualifications
3. aren't at their first choice of college

Not implying #1 at all, as people (in the US) of South/East Asian descent attend college (whether impacted by #2 or #3 as you described) at much higher rates than others, and make up a larger percentage of college students and graduates than their percentge in the overall population, and have much higher graduation rates than others, and much higher (again, on average) levels of academic success rates than others.

You are correct that #2 or #3 is the more likely impact of AA policies, rather than a non-trivial number of of South/East Asian descent not going to college at all.

Posted by Adam | November 27, 2007 11:27 AM

Harry my silly boy you're retort badly misses the mark. Here's the narrative knowledgable people propose: in the early to mid-century largely jewish teams from largely jewish schools based in largely jewish ghettos dominated American youth and sub-professional basketball. But the discriminatory policies of the era's professional leagues prevented jewish players by and large from playing, so interest waned. That and, more importantly, the jewish ghettos that had fostered jewish basketball dissolved, making basketball a far less prominent aspect of the modern jewish identity.

As to how you're questions apply it's not clear. Oops Oops Oops!

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 11:31 AM

Oh my, your not you're. Oops again!

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 11:34 AM

Adam,

Are you saying there's no empirical evidence that racial minorities in American society have suffered from inequities? Are you saying there's no evidence that at least some of the disparities between Blacks and Whites in IQ/SAT/ACT scores are driven by inequalities of opportunities? Justifying affirmative action in college admissions does not require that we prove that all races/ethnic groups have the exact same potential on average to succeed in any field of human activity. It does, however, require proof that ineqaulities of opportunity contributed in a significant way to an otherwise qualified applicant's relatively low test scores. That's why it makes more sense to use socioeconomic status as a basis for affirmative action, rather than race (unless diversity in the student body is a goal in itself).

Posted by eltoro | November 27, 2007 11:34 AM

eltoro,

Not at all. Discrimination certainly prevented generation after generation of blacks from getting the education opportunities they deserved, and that this had a snowball effect that we are still witnessing today

"That's why it makes more sense to use socioeconomic status as a basis for affirmative action, rather than race (unless diversity in the student body is a goal in itself)."

Absolutely true, and the economic point is the more salient one: Is there a huge difference between growing up white, dirt poor in, say, eastern Kentucky to uneducated parents of uneducated parents of uneducated parents vs. growing up black, dirt poor in Detroit uneducated parents of uneducated parents of uneducated parents? An AA policy that looked at economic disadvanteges would have more of a chance of a) passing constitutional muster and b) avoiding the kind of stereotyping that owenz mentions above that can often negate the positive effects of properly construed AA programs and c) maintaining a large measure of political support across racial lines.

Posted by Adam | November 27, 2007 11:43 AM

The affirmative action question is largely academic. The Supreme Court barely upheld affirmative action with O'Connor as the swing justice, and Kennedy is against it. In other words: it's just a matter of time before it's gone.

Your read of the Supremes might be true, although I think they think they're largely done with the issue and even Kennedy refused to do away with it altogether. But this largely also has to do with public institutions only; private employers/universities are not subject to the 14th Amendment. (Although there are federal-funding hooks that might -- might -- be used to extend any anti-AA rulings to the private sector.)

Posted by Glenn | November 27, 2007 11:46 AM

"Matt, as a Jew and an NBA fan, you should start advocating an affirmative action policy to get some kosher blood into the league."

Harry,

Matt is probably well aware that in the old days of the NBA, Blacks weren't allowed to play
in the league, and some of the white superstars in those days included Jews. Once Blacks were allowed to join the League, they were able to gain admission through their own efforts. Therefore, it would be hard to justify affirmative action for Jews to gain entry to the League, since there is no history of discrimination against Jews in the NBA to point to, and there is little evidence that current Black predominance in the NBA is due to unjust hiring preferences for Blacks. Moreover, there is little evidence that Jews suffer from ineqaulities of opportunity which prevent from being high achievers in professional sports like basketball. In fact, the more likely explanation for Jewish underrepresentation in the NBA (and other professional sports as well) is that Jews on average have a plethora of opportunities available to them in professional fields, which reduces the incentive for many fine Jewish athletes to choose professional sports as a career (at least as a player; there are some Jews who serve as team owners, executives, and agents).

Posted by eltoro | November 27, 2007 11:52 AM

Joel,

How many Duke graduates work at McKinsey or Bain versus North Carolina State graduates. My guess is that NC State is close to zero but Duke has several even though it is a smaller school. The same probably goes for Big Law or the residents at the Mayo Clinic.

Posted by superdestroyer | November 27, 2007 11:54 AM

"As to how you're questions apply it's not clear."

It's only unclear if you are being deliberately obtuse. My example was about the underrepresentation of Jews in the NBA today and so my questions were about that. Your sock puppet Cranky's comment was about an archaic irrelevancy.

"That and, more importantly, the jewish ghettos that had fostered jewish basketball dissolved, making basketball a far less prominent aspect of the modern jewish identity."

This is your explanation for the paucity of Jews in the NBA today? Jewish NBA fanboys like Matt and the author of the blog "Give Me The Rock" (see his "The State of Jews in the NBA" post where he points out that there actually was one Jew in the NBA last year) -- and the Jews who own a third of NBA teams -- demonstrate that there is still plenty of interest in basketball among Jews. So why only one (Black) Jew in the NBA? The pay isn't high enough?

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 12:04 PM

"How many Duke graduates work at McKinsey or Bain versus North Carolina State graduates. My guess is that NC State is close to zero but Duke has several even though it is a smaller school. The same probably goes for Big Law or the residents at the Mayo Clinic."

Ah, yes, the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If your little Duke grads had gone to NC state instead (same ambitious personalities, same smarts), what is the evidence they would not have gone just as far?

As I said, these are experiments without controls.

Posted by Joel | November 27, 2007 12:10 PM

"In fact, the more likely explanation for Jewish underrepresentation in the NBA (and other professional sports as well) is that Jews on average have a plethora of opportunities available to them in professional fields,"

So Jews are turning down $1 million+ salaries as NBA point guards to become podiatrists and write for The Atlantic? No one who has the ability to be a professional athlete willingly turns it down for "other opportunities"; they play sports first and then go on to other opportunities.

Since one of the rationals for affirmative action is to increase diversity, it would make sense for a proponent of affirmative action in academics to be a proponent of it in sports too. Since another rationale, as you mention, is to make up for past discrimination, what sense does it make to give affirmative action spots to blacks from Africa? What sense does it make to not give preference to Irish, Jewish, or Chinese-American applicants, based on the previous discrimination they all suffered in America?

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 12:14 PM

Joel,

McKinsey etc would have taken one look at the application, seen the NC State and decided that the person was not smart enough for them. That is why the competition for the top schools is so great. It is the same with the top 14 law schools and all the rest. Just having a diploma from an Ivy League makes it much easier to get into medical school.

Are you arguing that where a person goes to college has no affect on the rest of the life?

Posted by superdestroyer | November 27, 2007 12:16 PM

Superdestroyer,

How many people work at McKinsey or Bain period? Or, for that matter how many Duke grads do they employ as opposed to say, I don't know...Harvard or Princeton grads? And have you ever been out of North Carolina or is that your frame of reference for everything? It's a really interesting world out here, you outta see it.

Is the question of who gets top consulting jobs really that big a deal anyway? My one genuinely rich close friend is a partner at Booze Allen and graduated from Thomas More College, THAT'S RIGHT HOMEBOY!!! Thomas More. And he turned down a job at Bain to take the one he has. Seems like a very happy fella too.

As for Race, IQ and Andrew Sullivan, Will Saletan et al: We tried for a long time in our country to make major public policy decisions on the basis of "innate" and irreducible differences between the races. It didn't work out well before the Civil War or for the hundred years that followed.

We will never again have a debate on public policy in this country that is based on the idea of inherent racial differences given that history. ANYONE who doesn't understand that simple fact, really, really does not understand our history or our politics and should be looked at with suspicion anytime they claim they do.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 12:17 PM

"No one who has the ability to be a professional athlete willingly turns it down for "other opportunities"; they play sports first and then go on to other opportunities."

Somebody tell Pat Tillman.

Posted by Joel | November 27, 2007 12:17 PM

Yes Harry, you're example "was about the underrepresentation of Jews in the NBA today" and since History begins today it has perfect pertinence. Never mind culture Harry, or the fostering effects of environment. If basketball is a cheaply played game ideally suited to the urban environment (look at all that macadem!), it must nevertheless be admitted that the inner city is hardly a basketball incubator, and that the "dissolution of jewish ghettos" would therefore have no effect on the sum of jewish basketball (playing that is, not merely watching and enjoying). No cause and effect here, right Harry? I mean, this is how we analyze the past? By totally disregarding it?

Look Harry, you made a deliciously ignorant comment. Just delicious. Now let it go and develop another analogy. Try wide recievers--so many black wide recievers! I've no retort to that.

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 12:29 PM

"Somebody tell Pat Tillman."

He actually did play pro sports first before joining the Army.

In any case, there isn't a large trend of Jews putting off more lucrative professional opportunities to serve in the U.S. military, so I don't think this explains the paucity of Jews in the NBA.

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 12:30 PM

Joel,

If you are stating that going to a lesser school has not adverse effect then are you also arguing that going to an elite university also has no effect.

If going to NC State instead of Duke will have no adverse effect on the middle class white guy then going to Duke instead of NC State should really have no beneficial effect to the underrepresented minority candidate with the lower SAT score.

It seem like the pro-AA crowd are making to conflicting arguments. That going to an elite school is a tremendous benefit for a black/hispanic student but of no benefit to a white or asian student.

It is sort of the same argument used during the UMich Supreme Court cases. White and Asian students need black and Hispanics students in the same class so that they can work with them later. But black students at Howard or Grambling do not need white students around to learn how to become leaders or managers.

Posted by superdestroyer | November 27, 2007 12:33 PM

Is the question of who gets top consulting jobs really that big a deal anyway?

Right. Almost nobody gives a shit.

Anti-AA measures get broad support for some reason even though the "damage" caused by race/gender preferences boils down to a tiny fraction of people having a slightly lower chance of getting into Princeton instead of having to settle for Berkeley.

Posted by apm | November 27, 2007 12:34 PM

"We will never again have a debate on public policy in this country that is based on the idea of inherent racial differences"

Really?

http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Boring-People-Lessons-Science/dp/0375412840/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5097749-5284034?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193837252&sr=1-1

I mean, really?

And from what high office do you issue this papal edict?

Selected quote from the book:

“there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

It might be true, it might not be true, but let's not talk about it because our history makes it a difficult or emotionally charged subject?

Posted by Adam | November 27, 2007 12:41 PM

apm,

You have massively oversimplified it. Imagine two kids at T.C. Williams High School in Virginia (since it has been in the Washington Post recently) one white and one black. The white kid takes all AP courses, does the extracirricular and makes a 1300 on the SAT test. His chances are less than 50/50 to get into UVA. His black classmate takes fewer AP classes, has fewer extracirriculars, and makes a 1200 SAT. He is a lock for UVA. The white kids settles on Virginia Tech.

The black kids gets special oreintation at UVA, special tutors,and benefits from raced based mentoring. there is even a tax payer funded position at UVA to ensure the black kids succeeds. The kid at VT is just another white kids from Northern Virginia like a couple thousand other freshmen. No speical programs for him.

When they both apply to UVA law school four years later (or maybe five for the black kid), why should the black kid get a second round of AA over the white kid?

Say the white kid does good but not great on his LSAT but does not get into UVA law school but settles for George Mason. The black kid probably makes less on the LSAT but still gets into UVA Law School.

After they both graduate out of the top 10% of their class, the job prospects for the white kids are very limit. But many law firms will hire the black kid to increase their diversity.

In the end, how many times does a black person get to benefit from AA in their life? How many times does the white kids have to settle to being an also ran because of his race?

Posted by superdestroyer | November 27, 2007 12:49 PM

"So Jews are turning down $1 million+ salaries as NBA point guards to become podiatrists and write for The Atlantic? No one who has the ability to be a professional athlete willingly turns it down for "other opportunities"; they play sports first and then go on to other opportunities."

Harry,

Do you have any proof that this doesn't occur? Being an accountant,investment banker, physician, or professional writer can be very lucrative (I'm sure Matt makes at least a comfortable living as a writer for the Atlantic), and the risk of injury is far less in these fields than it is in professional sports. Therefore, as a result of family & cultural influences, many Jews with the raw athletic ability to be a professional player are probably discouraged during childhood from pursuing professional sports as a career, unless it is to serve as team executive or as a sports agent.

Posted by eltoro | November 27, 2007 12:58 PM

Like eltoro points out above(and ezra has a whole post on it), for Sullvan's logic to make sense, present inequalities have to be entirely genetic, with no (or at least, very little) relevent environmental/social/etc. basis. There is no scientific support for this, it's a bizarrely anti-common sense assumption, and there's a abundance of research confirming that there are indeed environmental, social, etc. factors involved - see, as a very bare minimum, studies involving otherwise identical resumes, job candidates, etc.

Also, I would recommend Andrew Olmstead's post It Was My Understanding There Would Be No Math over at Obsidian Wings:
"Responding to hilzoy's post on discrimination, in which I end up making a case quite different to what I expected. . . .There is a lot more to the world than math, and my figures are extremely rough in any case, but that's an awfully powerful argument for affirmative action. This is not the first time that I've made a case other than the one I expected to when I started, but that's part of what makes blogging interesting . . ."

Posted by Dan S. | November 27, 2007 1:03 PM

"When they both apply to UVA law school four years later (or maybe five for the black kid),..."

Ah superdestroyer, here's the problem with your example. It didn't take the black kid five years to graduate; why, he never graduated at all! In his first week on campus he raped a white girl and was summarily expelled. Later he was killed by rival drug dealers. I mean, with jungle bunnies, isn't this how it always goes? I mean, not merely in my imagination but in reality as well?

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 1:05 PM

The question, "does it help to go to Duke instead of NC State"? has been answered many times, and the answer is always, "no." If I didn't have work to do I'd find one of the studies. But they all say: your college is only useful in that it's usually a sign of your intelligence. People who go to Stanford generally do better than people who go to state schools, but just because they're smarter, more talented, harder working, etc. Stanford doesn't make them successful. If you have the ability to get into Stanford, you'll do well whether you go there or not. The fields where you "have to" have an Ivy League degree are few and far between, and statistically overwhelmed by the jobs in which it doesn't matter.

Posted by too many steves | November 27, 2007 1:09 PM

How many times does the white kids have to settle to being an also ran because of his race?

But you are also oversimplifying. First, most people wouldn't consider a law graduate from George Mason an also-ran in the broad scope of society. Secondly, you are looking at two individuals. I am contending that the number of white men in the situation you describe is overwhelmed by the number of white men who get into GVA - and - overwhelmed by the number of black men who don't get into GVA.

Posted by apm | November 27, 2007 1:10 PM

Like eltoro points out above(and ezra has a whole post on it), for Sullvan's logic to make sense, present inequalities have to be entirely genetic, with no (or at least, very little) relevent environmental/social/etc. basis. There is no scientific support for this, it's a bizarrely anti-common sense assumption, and there's a abundance of research confirming that there are indeed environmental, social, etc. factors involved - see, as a very bare minimum, studies involving otherwise identical resumes, job candidates, etc.

Also, I would recommend Andrew Olmstead's post It Was My Understanding There Would Be No Math over at Obsidian Wings:
"Responding to hilzoy's post on discrimination, in which I end up making a case quite different to what I expected. . . .There is a lot more to the world than math, and my figures are extremely rough in any case, but that's an awfully powerful argument for affirmative action. This is not the first time that I've made a case other than the one I expected to when I started, but that's part of what makes blogging interesting . . ."

Posted by Dan S. | November 27, 2007 1:10 PM

"If going to NC State instead of Duke will have no adverse effect on the middle class white guy then going to Duke instead of NC State should really have no beneficial effect to the underrepresented minority candidate with the lower SAT score."

If they both meet the entrance requirements, then I agree. The point is that if they both meet the entrance requirements at an elite school, then taking either one would not measurably harm the other.

"It seem like the pro-AA crowd are making to conflicting arguments. That going to an elite school is a tremendous benefit for a black/hispanic student but of no benefit to a white or asian student."

There are many arguments made by pro-AA people. Some are good. Some aren't. I don't have to adopt all the arguments to be pro-AA. My argument is internally consistent. Others' mileage may vary.

Posted by Joel | November 27, 2007 1:16 PM

Adam,

Perhaps I wasn't clear, for which I apologize. I haven't issued some edict here. When I said that we no longer debate (and decide) on issues of public policy in this country based on the idea of innate racial differences I wasn't referring to what's going on in these comments or in Watson's book. I mean we no longer do this at the legislative level, the executive level or in the courts, the levels that matter when the question of policy arises.

The battle over affirmative action makes my point. That debate revolves around the issue of whether or not affirmative action is fair and/or constitutional, not whether or not differences in IQ make it pointless. That may be the grounds on which Andrew Sullivan would like to debate the issue but it isn't and given our history, it's not going to be. We will never arrive at the consensus with regard to innate differences that we would have to arrive at in order to discuss anything of importance on those grounds nor, given American racial history will it ever be politically palatable to bring the debate we're having in these posts onto the floor of any legislature. That's my point.

Unless you want to make the case that we will debate this or other matters of public policy using inherent racial differences as a starting point, my point stands.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 1:34 PM

davido

Now I'm with you. Thanks for the clarification.

"We will never arrive at the consensus with regard to innate differences that we would have to arrive at in order to discuss anything of importance on those grounds nor, given American racial history will it ever be politically palatable to bring the debate we're having in these posts onto the floor of any legislature. That's my point."

American's very rarely arrive at a consensus on anything at all, so I'm not certain how salient a point that is. I'm also not sure that we can extrapolate our current political social/reluctance regarding racial differences indefinitely into the future, especially if the scientific consensus underlying those differences are becomes more firmly established.

Posted by Adam | November 27, 2007 1:50 PM

In the end, how many times does a black person get to benefit from AA in their life?

How about 300 years, or the length of time apartheid existed in America.

Posted by Horatio Parker | November 27, 2007 2:00 PM

"Yes Harry, you're example "was about the underrepresentation of Jews in the NBA today" and since History begins today it has perfect pertinence. Never mind culture Harry, or the fostering effects of environment. If basketball is a cheaply played game ideally suited to the urban environment..."

Mark,

You mean like the urban environment Matt grew up in (not that basketball courts aren't ubiquitous in both suburban and urban environments)? You're whistling past the graveyard here. History may not begin today, but the history of anti-Jewish discrimination in the 1920s has as much relevance to the paucity of Jewish NBA players today as it does to the surfeit of Jewish physicians today, which is to say it has no relevance. You know that, but you feel compelled to keep dancing anyway.

You're afraid to give an inch toward the obvious explanation, which is that Jews, on average, are inferior in certain inherent attributes than blacks: height, fast-twitch musculature, speed, etc. The reason you are afraid is obvious: if you admit that Jews and blacks aren't inherently equal in athletic potential this leaves the door open to other inherent differences in potential which must not be named. So I understand why you feel compelled to keep playing such a weak hand.

"Harry, Do you have any proof that this doesn't occur? Being an accountant,investment banker, physician, or professional writer can be very lucrative (I'm sure Matt makes at least a comfortable living as a writer for the Atlantic), and the risk of injury is far less in these fields than it is in professional sports."

How about instead of asking me to prove a negative, you use your common sense for a moment. I'm sure Matt does fine as an Atlantic writer, and it's a great gig to get paid to do something you'd be doing anyway, but do you honestly think he would turn down a seven figure contract to play a sport he loves if he had the opportunity? That's absurd on its face.

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 2:03 PM

"If you have the ability to get into Stanford, you'll do well whether you go there or not."

If that were true, than you wouldn't have so many applicants clamoring for a chance to pay $30k+ (?) per year to go to Stanford, instead of paying ~$10k per year to go to Cal State Fullerton. And also, what Superdestroyer said:

"It seem like the pro-AA crowd are making to conflicting arguments. That going to an elite school is a tremendous benefit for a black/hispanic student but of no benefit to a white or asian student."

In short, if it didn't matter what school you went to, affirmative action in education wouldn't be an issue for anyone. But it does, so it is.

A perfect example is the Atlantic. How many state college grads have blogs here?

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 2:15 PM

Uh, fellows? On average, high-SES children of highly-educated black professionals make lower SAT scores than low-SES children of poor whites.

SAT scores are a proxy for IQ scores. The only reasonable explanation for the observed facts is reversion to the mean, and the data strongly (almost conclusively) suggest that IQ is partly genetic.

Affirmative action (AA) was sold as a way to help socially-deprived blacks over a threshold. Once a generation of blacks was boosted into the professional middle class, we were told, they would perpetuate themselves there-- their children would grow up with the same advantages as white middle-class children and would post similar achievements in life. (It was understood that society would have to accept one long generation of ill-qualified black professionals. That would have been a small price to pay to solve the overall problem.) People still peddle this myth-- like Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who repeated it in Grutter, writing that 25 more years of racial preferences would do the trick (though 35 previous years hadn't).

In fact, as a scheme to wipe out the average racial performance gap, or even as a scheme to create a self-perpetuating black middle class, affirmative action has utterly failed and no amount of tinkering can fix it.

In current American practice, affirmative action hoovers up the small fraction of black children who are reasonably smart and gives them educational credentials and jobs rather better (say, 1SD) than most of them could earn by themselves. They end up with fairly high SES. Due to reversion to the mean those AA beneficiaries produce children who are, on the average, noticeably less smart than themselves. Left to their own devices those kids cannot maintain the socio-economic status they inherit from their parents so AA has to hoover up a new generation of reasonably smart black kids-- many of whom have parents of merely average IQ (for blacks, meaning 1 SD below the mean for whites)-- to produce a new generation of underqualified black professionals.

That, by the way, is why every year we read new heart-tugging stories about bright high-school kids from bad neighborhoods qualifying for college with help from AA programs. Smart kids can have normal (even dull) parents! Stories of this kind usually suggest that the smart kids must have smart parents who were held down by racism, but that's nonsense. Reversion to the mean predicts equally that both parents and children of exceptional people will average closer to normal.

Finally, affirmative action gets a lot of support from bright black parents with more normal kids. The bright parents want the best for their kids and are able advocates for programs to benefit them. Such parents are quite willing to "work the system" for their kids. That is one reason there are always plenty of AA beneficiaries ready to tell reporters how they suffer from racism (despite the almost perfectly inverse truth of the situation) and that AA should be, not just maintained, but expanded for the next generation!

Look, if the average racial performance gap in America were really strictly a product of environment alone (whether SES of black families, or any supposed climate of white racism) then interventions such as the Civil Rights Acts and affirmative action would have largely closed the gap already. They haven't. Yes, AA reduces the "outcome" gap, but the fact that children of the black middle-class can't maintain their parents' SES shows we need more than a simple poverty+racism explanation.

Since AA cannot produce a self-sustaining black professional middle class, and by definition delivers underqualified graduates and workers, we should abolish it immediately.

(Please understand this: millions of highly-intelligent American blacks do not need AA. It's just that there are too few of them for racial bean-counters (because only 15% of blacks are smarter than the average white). The whole point of AA is to boost ill-qualified blacks over better-qualified whites to achieve whatever quota ("proportional representation," "critical mass," etc.) that social engineers have set.)

Once we abolish AA, smart blacks can show their earned credentials to get the respect they deserve. There might be fewer black professionals, but at least they would be legitimate.

Posted by Oh Not Again | November 27, 2007 2:15 PM

"Once we abolish AA, smart blacks can show their earned credentials to get the respect they deserve. There might be fewer black professionals, but at least they would be legitimate."

It's true. And one Dr. Benjamin Carson is infinitely better than ten Dr. Patrick Chavises.

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 2:21 PM

"How about instead of asking me to prove a negative, you use your common sense for a moment. I'm sure Matt does fine as an Atlantic writer, and it's a great gig to get paid to do something you'd be doing anyway, but do you honestly think he would turn down a seven figure contract to play a sport he loves if he had the opportunity? That's absurd on its face."

Harry,

You need to use common sense. Suppose Matt displayed both great athletic ability
and great intellectual ability as a child. How likely is it that his parents would have encouragaged him to pursue a professional sports career over a career using his intellectual ability? Yes, a professinal athletic career has a great reward outcome, but that reward comes with greater risk of injury. If Matt's parents steered him in his formative years toward an intellectually based career, how likely is it that Matt would have pursued hoop dreams?

Posted by eltoro | November 27, 2007 2:26 PM

Harry,

Before anyone can turn down an opportunity to do anything, including play pro sports, the opportunity has to exist. For it to exist it has to have been pursued.

Anyone who wants to play pro sports has to decide to pursue that dream early on and pursue it relentlessly. Matt didn't pursue it, nor did I, an African-American who is very athletic but who was taught by his parents that the odds of ever playing professionally were too low to sacrifice any other opportunity for. So I went to a high school that was known for it's academics not it's athletics and started on a basketball team that won three games my senior year. Since the only scholarship offers I got were from academically second rate Division II schools I chose to go to a better college where, not having been recruited, I didn't even bother to try out for the team (In those days, before freshman could play varsity, the freshman team usually consisted of 5-6 scholarship players and 10-12 walk-ons). And while I'll never know what would have happened had I pursued the dream, I am nonetheless happy with my choices and with my life

My point? Those who end up playing professionally didn't just happen to have that option among others when it came time to enter the work force. They worked from childhood for the opportunity to make that choice, foreclosed other possibilities and in the end the vast, vast majority of those who chose that path never made a dime in pro sports anyway.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 2:36 PM

Joel,

McKinsey etc would have taken one look at the application, seen the NC State and decided that the person was not smart enough for them. That is why the competition for the top schools is so great. It is the same with the top 14 law schools and all the rest. Just having a diploma from an Ivy League makes it much easier to get into medical school.

Are you arguing that where a person goes to college has no affect on the rest of the life?

Posted by superdestroyer | November 27, 2007 12:16 PM
=================================================
Baloney. Most business leaders don't go to elite schools.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115853818747665842-kChmVyLXSEX6r5nHSVKwfSqtIJg_20070917.html?mod=rss_free

The college diplomas of the nation's top executives tell an intriguing story: Getting to the corner office has more to do with leadership talent and a drive for success than it does with having an undergraduate degree from a prestigious university.

Most CEOs of the biggest corporations didn't attend Ivy League or other highly selective colleges. They went to state universities, big and small, or to less-known private colleges.

Some 10% of CEOs currently heading the top 500 companies received undergraduate degrees from Ivy League colleges, according to a survey by executive recruiter Spencer Stuart. But more received their undergraduate degrees from the University of Wisconsin than from Harvard, the most represented Ivy school.

Wal-Mart Stores CEO H. Lee Scott, for example, went to Pittsburg State University in Kansas, Intel CEO Paul Otellini to University of San Francisco and Costco Wholesale CEO James Sinegal to San Diego City College.

This information should help allay the anxieties of many parents and their college-bound children who believe admission to a top-ranked school with a powerful alumni network is a prerequisite to success in the upper echelons of business management. Today's crop of chief executives are, of course, at least a generation older than current college students, but they are in the position to hire and say they don't favor job candidates with certain degrees.

Posted by Campesino | November 27, 2007 3:16 PM

"A perfect example is the Atlantic. How many state college grads have blogs here?" So your assumption is that very few if any graduates from Berkeley, Chapel Hill, Ann Arbor, UCLA or the service academies (to name a few public schools) have blogs at the Atlantic. Fair enough. I have a better question though; how many grads from those places make more money than the bloggers at the Atlantic?

As for: "Once we abolish AA, smart blacks can show their earned credentials to get the respect they deserve. There might be fewer black professionals, but at least they would be legitimate."

Get respect from who exactly? I get respect in my profession from the only people that matter, the ones I work with who observe my performance day in and day out. Since I only care about the opinions of people I actually know, I'm not concerned with whether or not people I meet at cocktail parties or those I mention my profession to on airplanes "respect me." And if someone I work with assumes that I'm an affirmative action hire but at the same time respects the quality of my work, I don't have a problem. If they don't respect the quality of my work but don't ascribe my shortcomings to race but to me, then again, we're good (and I'll work harder). After all, when one of my colleagues screws up I don't make assumptions about all whites Asians or Hispanics based on an admittedly unrepresentative sample.

What goes undiscussed (and too often by blacks) when people raise the "respect v. affirmative action" argument is the number of times someone who works in integrated environments has to deal with the "compliment" of being told by whites in one way or another how much they're not like "those [most] other black people." No, we're smarter, more articulate, better groomed, harder working and better mannered. Now I'll admit that it's been awhile since I was told, again as a compliment, that if all black people were like me, there were would be no racism. I don't think that's happened since the late seventies and I genuinely count that as progress. But being thought of as the exception that proves the rule about all the other people who look like me is just as odious in it's way as being thought to be inherently inferior, especially when people point to their acceptance of me as a way to excuse their racism.

Sometimes I can't help thinking that at least one or two of the prominent blacks who oppose affirmative action do so because they're not bothered by this kind of thing but indeed welcome it. And affirmative action robs them of their special status as "exceptional" blacks.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 3:17 PM

The affirmative action system - systematically favoring white males and disenfranchising blacks propped itself shakily upon the proposition that blacks were inferior, anyway. An odd thing to assert, since that inferiority would surely have made the whole Jim Crow structure superfluous. But such was the nonsense fetched up from the unconscious in which white anxiety about blacks seemed like a permanent factor. After the civil rights era, I think we have seen the gradual spread of enlightenment in at least this area. The only people who hold out for black inferiority are the confederate re-enactors or their ideological equivalents. But racism is entrenched in many other ways in the American system, and defenders of that system, like Sullivan, will not hestitate to revive the old KKK verities, giving them a nice gloss of pseudo-science. All of which is a means of disguising the real need for remedial acts of justice in the U.S. to repair the oppression of blacks. That's a good cause. The supposed "inferiority" of blacks put on the table by 'liberals" who just happen to have a sense that the apartheid system profited a certain class of Americans enormously is a joke issue, a red herring.

Posted by roger | November 27, 2007 3:30 PM

Assuming that the job of the state is to "secure the blessings of liberty" by providing collective security (which necessarily includes remedying injustice), the extent to which population subgroups vary due to differing genetic profiles is simply irrelevant to public policy. Even to issues surrounding affirmative action, unless differing genetic endowments are themselves defined as injustices. But I don't think we're there yet, so Sullivan is simply projecting his own intellectual infirmities onto the rest of us.

It is inevitable that individuals will latch onto research into the extent to which population subgroups vary as a justification for their own biases. Not much that can be done about that. And it is not a reason for researchers to turn a blind eye to variations among population subgroups. Though it may be a reason to avoid non-scientific discussions about the issues.

Posted by henry evans | November 27, 2007 3:49 PM

"The only reasonable explanation for the observed facts is reversion to the mean, and the data strongly (almost conclusively) suggest that IQ is partly genetic."

Oh Not Again,

How does reversion to the mean prove a genetic component to IQ? Reversion to the mean is a phenomenon created by sampling errors, and by that fact that a particular score taken a particular time is partly determined by chance. If genetics play such an overwhelming role in determing IQ (so that the enviromental effect is negligible), reversion to the mean should not occur in regards to IQ scores.

If anything, reversion to the mean suggests that environment plays an important role in determining IQ. Genetics probably determines the RANGE of possible IQs that an individual can possess, but enviroment determines where in the range an individual will actually fall. People of low to moderate IQs can produce people with high IQs, because these parents cultivate and nurture the intellectual potential of their children, and instill a drive in them to maximize their intellectual ability. People with high IQs can in turn produce children of moderate IQs, if these high IQ parents take it for granted that their children will maximize their intellectual ability. If high achievement parents don't prod their children to achieve, these children will tend not to be achievers. Just ask Paris Hilton.

Posted by eltoro | November 27, 2007 3:57 PM

Well Harry let's suppose that MLB teams construct baseball academies in Latin America with no particular objective in mind. Let's also assume that basketball's stature, prevelance and accessibility within the inner city has no greater effect in drawing in, developing and cultivating basketball talent than a collection of suburban driveways.

The prevelance and intensity of basketball is as great in New Rochelle as it is in Bed Stuy Brooklyn. And if it isn't it doesn't matter. Ok.

But assuming all that, you're still left with the fact that Jews dominated youth and sub-professional basketball for much of the early to mid-twentieth century. House of Moses and all that. Even beat the Negroes.

So "You're afraid to give an inch toward the obvious explanation, which is that Jews, on average, are inferior in certain inherent attributes than blacks: height, fast-twitch musculature, speed, etc." And yet not much more than half a century ago such was not the case. So what is it Harry? Is my history wrong? Is this whole jewish basketball thing a piece of fantasy? Or did "certain inherent attributes" just migrate from the jews to the blacks one fateful day in 1948?

Anyway, Harry, I'm not particularly afraid of genetics. In fact I'm willing to go in the direction you're going (like I said Harry, black wide recievers!). It's just that you made such a deliciously ignorant analogy, on which one can't help but comment.

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 4:22 PM

"Just having a diploma from an Ivy League makes it much easier to get into medical school."

Well, since I've been on the faculty at a medical school for the past 20 years, this is something I know a little about.

Look, admission to elite schools is competitive, so elite schools can select for highly motivated, ambitious and bright kids. When you select on these criteria, you get a student body over-represented in these qualities. It is not surprising that you would graduate highly motivated, ambitious and bright kids then--it has nothing to do with anything you've done during four years. You just stand out of the way. But these same kids would have done equally well at a state school and with high grades, solid MCATs and some extracurriculars, they'll still get into med school.

All this stuff about the value added of elite universities is a triumph of marketing. You obviously fell for it.

Posted by Joel | November 27, 2007 4:40 PM

Here's what Harry's predecessors used to say about Jewish ballers:

"Paul Gallico, longtime sports editor for the New York Daily News, explained the intimate connection between Jews and basketball. 'Curiously...above all others, Gallico wroter, 'the game appealls to the temperment of the Jews.' While 'a good Jewish football player is a rarity...Jews flock to basketball by the thousands,' he insisted, because it placed 'a premium on an alert, scheming mind...flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smart aleckness,' traits naturally appealing tt 'the Hebrew with his Oriental background.'"

That's from the book Ellis Island Ebbetts Field, by Peter Levine, a work that documents, among other things, the ascendency of Jewish basketballing.

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 4:47 PM

Levine, by the way, has similarly crazy ideas concerning the inner city, ghetto community, and their relationship to basketball development:

"Although you didn't have to be Jewish to play basketball [as Harry said, there are courts in the suburbs too], especially in large eastern and midwestern cities containing substantial numbers of first-generation immigrant Jews, Jewish children flocked to the sport, making it a significant part of everyday community life and ultimate earning some of them local and national reputations for their exploits on the court."

And indeed, before the Negroes stole their genes, the Jews did earn themselves reputations. Here's another New York sports editor, writing in 1936:

"Ever since Dr. James A Naismith came up with a soccer ball, two peach baskets and a bright idea...basketball players have been chasing Jewish athletes and never quite catching up with them."

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 4:59 PM

Harry,

Did you also not realize that Jewish participation in American professional sports (including boxing) was much greater in the past than it is now, when opportunities for Jews to pursue employment in professional fields was much more limited? The WASP elite that dominated these fields had no desire for Jews to join their ranks, no matter how brainy Jews were. Moreover, the Jews that did manage to make small inroads into WASP enclaves were primarily middle class German & Austrian Jews, not the poorer and more numerous Polish & Russian Jews. Like African-Americans today, poor inner-city Polish and Russian Jews found great economic opportunities in the following fields: show business (particularly as comics), organized crime, and professional sports.

I think it is more than a coincidence that Jewish participation in organized crime and professional sports declined as the participation of Jews in medicine, finance, and other professional fields increased.

Posted by eltoro | November 27, 2007 5:03 PM

Eltoro,

How can you write that without mentioning the elephant in the room? Jewish (and, to a lesser extent, WASP) participation in professional sports declined as blacks were allowed to compete with them. Somehow, despite a lack of affirmative action and enrichment programs -- despite a previous history of discrimination -- black athletes, on average, consistently outperformed WASP and Jewish athletes. Sort of like how poor WASP and Jewish students, despite a lack of enrichment programs, etc., consistently outperform affluent black students academically today.

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 5:41 PM

Question about affirmative action for proponents to answer.

1) Which do you feel is the purpose of affirmative action (feel free to chose more than one):

A) To increase diversity in schools, workplaces etc.

B) To compensate for past discrimination.

C) To compensate specifically for slavery and Jim Crow.

D) To give under-achieving minorities a boost that will enable them to be self-sufficient in the middle class.

E) To make America a more colorblind society.

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 5:53 PM

Fred, for your quiz, I chose "F", to compensate for current discrimination.

Posted by HS | November 27, 2007 5:57 PM

When colleges stop providing preferential admissions for the sons and daughters of alumni then we can start discussing dismantling AA.

Posted by grumpy realist | November 27, 2007 6:18 PM

"How can you write that without mentioning the elephant in the room? Jewish (and, to a lesser extent, WASP) participation in professional sports declined as blacks were allowed to compete with them."

Oh dear Harry, if you're going to make these claims you're going to have to produce some evidence. And since blacks had been playing professional basketball since 1902 (Harry Lew), and since Jewish participation peaked in the late 1940s (the period of Max Zaslofsky, Nat Krinsky and Jammy Moskowitz) it's fairly clear that the correlation you're making is a bit faulty.

And unfortunately for you, we can compare the head to head records of all-black and all-jewish teams, because they often played each other. For the strict hereditarian, the results are unencouraging.

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 6:25 PM

I proposed in VDARE.com a Grand Bargain on affirmative action: we permanently accept racial preferences in favor of African-Americans descended from slaves in America (and for Native Americans). In return, we permanently ban racial and/or ethnic preferences for everybody else (e.g. Hispanics).

Sound fair?

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 27, 2007 6:42 PM

Probably too late for this thread, but my question for Harry and those others on the "blacks are genetically inferior" side of this argument is this: Why is this issue so important to you guys? It seems to me that in order to take that side of this particular argument, the issue would really have to be pretty important. You'd have to really WANT to think that blacks MUST be, as a group, less intelligent, and due to inherent genetic causes. Because the argument certainly opens you up to charges of being racist, and this particular argument is not new--it has a long and ugly history. It was, for example, used to justify slavery.

So this particular argument has a lot of ground to overcome before being accepted. This is not an argument about the amount of citric acid in lemons vs. limes or some other obscure scientific debate. This is a very ugly argument with some very ugly consequences.

Personally, given this history, I'd really have to be incredibly certain that the evidence was overwhelming to even consider the possibility of racial inferiority. I think any person with a conscience and any knowledge of history would set the bar at the same level. So, Harry, and also Saletan and Sully, what gives guys? Why so easily convinced by a pile of pretty dubious and subjective data? Why such a willingness to make such a destructive argument with such a sordid history?

And re: McKinsey's hiring practices:

I actually got an interview at McKinsey in the early 90s despite "only" having attended FSU. However, the girl who interviewed me (about my age at the time) expressed surprise that I'd been called in given my college background and let drop that she'd attended Duke and that most of the people who worked their attended similar schools. This whole thing actually still stings a little.

Sure, people who attend elite schools may tend, on average, to be smarter than those who don't. But they also tend to have more money. I probably could have gotten into Duke or some other private college, but there's no way I could have paid for it or qualified for enough financial aid. When I was a freshman at FSU in 1986, my tuition was $500 a semester! Duke would have probably been 25 times that.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 27, 2007 7:46 PM

"This is not an argument about the amount of citric acid in lemons vs. limes

What are you, some sort of lemonist?!

Posted by Dan S. | November 27, 2007 7:56 PM

Another old chestnut sighted:

"Jews used to dominate professional basketball!"

This is such a common response to observations of human biodiversity that Tom Wolfe features it in "I Am Charlotte Simmons" where some sportswriters on ESPN try to discuss why blacks dominate the NBA, but immediately get stuck discussing how Jews used to dominate basketball back in 1932 or whenever. It turns out that all the sportswriters on the panel are Jewish ...

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 27, 2007 8:06 PM

Below is a primer on genetic differences between the races. Basically, the very concept of race has been exploded as a result of the results of genetic research of the last 25 years. Money quote (as Sully likes to say):

A lot of genetics journals archive their abstracts (sometimes with links to the entire article) at PubMed (more info) .

* Human beings have very low genetic variability. Probably the entire species is Nescended from a single family that lived about 200,000 years ago.
* Most (85%) of our genetic variation is within populations rather than among them, even when different sequences of DNA (or proteins) are examined (Barbujani et al., 1997 ). Statistical divisions of humanity based on different kinds of genetic data do not group people consistently into races (Romualdi, 2002 ).
* Many of the genetic distinctions among races are based on commonness versus rarity of certain alleles (forms of a gene), but the same alleles are usually found in all human populations. There are very few alleles (such as the one that causes Tay-Sachs disease) or genetic markers that are found only in one race, and those tend to be fairly rare within that race.
* Among the few genes that vary consistently between populations is the one believed to have the greatest effect on skin, hair, and eye color: MC1R (Ranaa et al., 1999 ).
* The greatest physical and genetic diversity among humans is among the people who live in Africa today (Relethford and Harpending, 1994 ).

http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/earthhistory/humanrace.html

None of this will stop the theorizing of the racists, who don't like to be confused with the facts.

As to AA, lets face it, its on its last legs. I note that none of the enemies of AA have cited an alternative policy that would help blacks overcome the problems of past and current discrimination. I guess their alternative is as said above, " N***ger , STFU!"

Posted by stonetools | November 27, 2007 8:11 PM

Did you also know that Old Etonians used to dominate sprinting back in the 19th Century? Obviously, that _proves_ that the fact that the last 48 finalists in the men's 100m dash in the Olympics (from 1984 onward) have been of West African descent is just some sort of socially constructed optical illusion.

Who are you gonna believe: political correctness or your lying eyes?

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 27, 2007 8:11 PM

I am thus refuted. Except that the old etonians were racing old charterhousers. The old jews of yore were playing old blacks of same...and...oh my gawd...beating them!

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 8:17 PM

But Tom Wolfe put it in his novel, so I must be mistaken.

Note though that Jewish basketball proves nothing really. Just that "Jews can't play basketball therefore blacks are stupid" suffers from a faulty premise. Try another argument. I'm listening.

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 8:21 PM

I teach at a highly selective liberal arts college. The entering freshman at this school are, as a group on par intellectually with the graduate students I encountered at the big state university I taught at before I took this job. They are very bright, well prepared at the secondary level (with some glaring exceptions), independent, motivated and willing to work themselves to exhaustion. When they graduate they will be all of the things I just described and will we hope, have more knowledge, skill, maturity and judgement than they had when they got here. As a group they will succeed academically (our FOUR year graduation rate is 96%) here and post-here and they will succeed professionally. And their success, more than our effort (which is considerable), makes our reputation. Were they all to enroll as a group somewhere else they would make that place's reputation as well. But must they go here to succeed in life? No, of course not. These kids would succeed at any college and they would succeed in life as well.

We live in a rich country where having a college education is a key to entering doors that are (too) often locked otherwise. The overwhelming majority of those who go to college and go on to succeed in life do not by definition go to the most selective schools. Our collective success as a country doesn't depend on the people who go to Harvard etc. If it did we'd be living in an oligarchy where only the elite would succeed (such places exist don't they Mexico?). We're not. Nor can individual success be laid to attendance at the top schools. If that were true, most of our college educated population would by definition be failures as individuals and that's also not true.

I say this to point out the obvious and that is that so little actually rides on the issue of iq except at the individual level and then only when someone is genuinely impaired. I understand that it's a group/individual status issue, as are so many things we argue over in this country without admitting that status has anything to do with them; race for example. But to combine these three issues, race, genetics and iq and then pretend that something important is riding on the connection between them is either pointless or dangerous depending on how far up the the public policy decision chain this argument goes.

We indulged in making decisions based on what we thought were group differences for most of our history. And we'll never know what we lost by denying so much opportunity to so many for so long.

We've made progress but not enough apparently to lose all of our prejudicial thinking. But I for one refuse to take seriously as an intellectual pursuit something that really isn't about science at all.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 8:37 PM

Harry and Steve,

You are also not accounting for the fact that whites still make up considerable portion of the NBA (although they tend to be supporting players rather superstars). Given that Jews in the past played far better basketball than Gentile whites (and as Mark points out, were able to defeat all Black teams), why has Jewish participation in the sport declined to an almost nil rate today? Even if one accepts the premise that genetics gives Blacks an edge over whites in basketball playing ability, increased competition from Blacks by itself doesn't explain the disappearance of the Jewish basketball player. Irish and Slavic whites still find a place in today's NBA; why would the Chosen People disappear from the court, given the immense prowess that Jews once demonstrated in basketball? Knowing that discrimination against Jews in professional fields began disappearing in the post WW2 era in America, and knowing that Jewish participation in basketball peaked in the 1940s, however, it would be reasonable to argue that increased opportunities for Jews in medicine, finance, education, etc. reduced cultural pressures in the Jewish community to pursue professional sports.

Posted by eltoro | November 27, 2007 8:38 PM

We will never again have a debate on public policy in this country that is based on the idea of inherent racial differences given that history. ANYONE who doesn't understand that simple fact, really, really does not understand our history or our politics and should be looked at with suspicion anytime they claim they do.
Posted by davido

Actually, Davido, we have been and will continue to have this debate about low black IQ and civilizational accomplishment. Thomas Jefferson despaired about blacks ever being full citizens and contributing like othe races could. He regarded the likelihood for success of future black-run nations and cities in Africa, their ever attaining the level of civilization accomplishment as West, East, the "musslemans", even the savages of Mexico and South America - as dismal.

The science is what it is.
The Hap-Map is what it is.
(It shows that mankind is fast-evolving with 3 significant brain mutations and mankind outside Africa both passed through a narrow genetic bottleneck and then evolved, away from blacks for some 25,000 years - some very distinct genetic differences.)

The quest to understand and compensate for racial differences and inequality of results other than by quotas of blacks for elite schools, quotas of whites for the NBA teams, quotas of Jews - is continuing and reflects a social evolution past the use of reverse discrimination to "levellize" results on assumption all humans are genetically equal in every way.
The physiological differences between races is profound enough to now require different medicines between the races for certain civilizations, different sports physiology treatments based on different hormone levels and fast vs. slow twitch muscle components, different child development techniques (black toddlers are more aggressive, impulsive, and learn to walk and crawl faster than white or Asian infants)

Like it or not, Davido, the ideology of pretent color-blindness is going away. American history is nice and all that, but 95% of humanity doesn't share our history and resarch is going at breakneck speed on our evolution and what genomes confer advantage or disadvantage. With a future where gene manipulation may not just wipe out genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis, MD, sickle cell, tay-sachs. But give blacks the genes for the two favorable brain mutations whites and Asians have while giving a portion of the desirable black muscle genes to Asians & whites interested in basketball, and the genetic ability to digest milk and alcohol better that whites have, to Asians.
As well as valuable "niche" genes that are being identified by the Hap-Map of low cholesterol in a few thousand Italians in a "pocket", genes giving Ashkenazi Jews far higher likelihood of unusual verbal intelligence and perfect pitch, the Han Chinese ability to draw more nutrition from starches, and the higher intelligence of those in the Northern Asian migration from the Steppes than Asians in the Southern migration.

Cheer up, Davido - your descendents may not have to bother to continue bogus strategies to blame racism for low IQ scores, they just may be equal in intelligence already, because science fixed their mental shortcomings...

Posted by Chris Ford | November 27, 2007 8:50 PM

Ah, Steve, the old Olympic sprinter thing. Explain some things for me. If race is the determining factor in why the "last 48 finalists in the men's 100m dash in the Olympics (from 1984 onward)" have been of West African descent, why did it take so long? While it's true that old Etonians used to dominate the Olympic sprints whites (American and European), won the Olympic 100 and/or 200 eight times after Jesse Owens won both in 1936. The longest period that anyone has held a sprint world record was the nearly seventeen years that Pietro Mennea of Italy held the record in the 200 (broken by the current world record holder, Michael Johnson in 1996).

And why is it that all the Olympic champions in both sprints from 1984 on are of West African descent? Notice, none of them are West African. If genes were the sole issue, or dare I say it, even the primary one, how could that be so? Sub-Saharan African countries field full track and field teams in Olympic competition. East African runners (but really mostly Kenyans from a handful of clans in the Rift Valley) dominate distance running as East and North African runners dominate the middle distances (800, 1500, 3k 5k). It isn't opportunity. West African athletes do quite well in other professional sports, soccer for example and increasingly basketball.

No, there's something about runners of West African descent from the America's and more specifically, the ENGLISH SPEAKING Americas (no Cubans for example, no one from Haiti, the DR, Central or South America, all visited by the slave trade) and their descendants in Britain that seems to mark them as special when it comes to the sprints. They are in a very real way, genetic anomalies.

It could be an artifact of slavery. Those of us who are of West African descent are descendants of that percentage of deportees who survived the Middle Passage and the rigors that followed. We may never know of course but it demands an explanation if your thesis (whatever the hell it is) is going to hold.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 9:20 PM

I'm no expert on basketball history, but I seem to remember two changes in the game since the alleged golden age of Jewish pro basketball players in the Roaring Twenties or Great Depression:

1) In the original version of the game, there was a tip-off after every goal, which slowed the game down considerably, i.e., there wasn't as much running.

2) The jump shot was virtually non existent back then. I don't think it became widely used until the 1950s.

Now, given that my fellow Ashkenazi Jews are not known for our foot speed or vertical leaping ability, and African Americans are, on average, known to be superior in both, that should help clarify why Jewish NBA players are so rare today.

There are a handful of Jewish NFL players, but:

1) The NFL has about four times as many players in it, so the odds of making the league are a little better than making the NBA; and

2) The Jewish players tend to be in positions that don't require extreme speed or leaping ability, e.g., offensive line, QB.

The smattering of Jewish Olympic athletes also tend to be in sports that require little-to-no foot speed or leaping ability, e.g., Judo, wind surfing.

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 9:24 PM

Chris Ford,

I'd answer your post but I'm not sure what "pretent color-blindness" is.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 9:24 PM

Let's look at the obvious: basketball was not a very popular sport in America back in the 1920s-1930s when Jews did well in it. It wasn't close to being one of the top three spectator sports in the country. It was only played here and there around the country, such as in New York City and Indiana. Think about the famous stars of the "Golden Age of Sports" in the 1920s: Babe Ruth, Red Grange, Bobby Jones, Bill Tilden. Man O' War, etc. Where are the famous basketball players? Basketball, which was only invented in 1895, was way behind boxing, horse racing, and maybe track and field. I can't even name any basketball stars before Hank Luisetti of Stanford introduced the one-handed shot to the East at a celebrated game at in 1936. The first professional basketball player to make much of a dent on the national consciousness wasn't until George Mikan immediately after WWII.

There wasn't even a national professional league until after WWII (and blacks didn't play in the NBA until 1950). Basketball was barely played in the South where most blacks lived before WWII. The black sports between the wars were primarily baseball, boxing, and, at the middle class / college-going level, track and field.

Basketball was a lame game back then. You're deluded if you imagine it was then the showcase of athleticism that it became in the 1960s and 1970s.

All these facts would be obvious to anybody who knows anything about the history of American sports if people didn't let political correctness and Jewish ethnocentric nostalgia make them stupid.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 27, 2007 9:49 PM

The rancid metaphysics of the racialist point of view has become more and more silly as understanding of DNA and the genome become more widespread. So you see some panic in the mire.

Posted by Comment | November 27, 2007 9:54 PM

Fred,

In his book, "Origins of the Jump Shot" John Christgau credits eight men with pioneering the shot beginning in, wait for it... the Depression.

Among them were Myer "Whitey" Skoog of Brainerd MN, Bud Palmer of Phillips-Exeter Academy, Jumpin" Joe Fulks from a tiny town in Western Kentucky who held the NBA scoring record (63) for a decade, and Belus Van Smawley, another early NBA star.

Look one of the problems with the discussion of this subject involves the degree to which some of the people involved in it are forever citing as "facts" things about the genetic abilities of certain groups when some of those things either turn out not to be facts at all, or end up raising questions rather than answering them.

African-American dominance of the NBA is an interesting thing. I won't try to deny that genes play a role, the question is what is the role? And what are the other factors? Why for instance are so many of the best white players in the NBA foreign? Where are the American successors to Barry, Bird, Cowens, Cousy, Goodrich, Havlicek, Maravich, Rudy T, Walton, West, hell, even Tom Chambers? Dunno. But any of these men could play in today's NBA so the answer ain't in the genes.

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 10:00 PM

Davido laments the IQ uber alles point of view. Wisely, he sees the squalid implications of that pov. Btw, no football players these days are as tough as the Seven Blocks of Granite back in the day.

Posted by Comment | November 27, 2007 10:05 PM

Grumpy Realist: When colleges stop providing preferential admissions for the sons and daughters of alumni then we can start discussing dismantling AA.

That is such a load of crap. In the Gratz case about racial discrimination (affirmative action) in undergraduate admissions to the University of Michigan, the school admitted that being a legacy was worth 4 points, writing a perfect essay was worth 3 points, and making a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points. Having black skin was worth 20 points.

Besides, trading admissions for donations (the real goal of legacy preferences) is neither racist nor unconstitutional. Giving applicants 20 points for race is both. Indeed, with 40 years of AA admissions under society's belt plenty of AA beneficiaries' children are now eligible for legacy preferences, so why would they need points for race?

Posted by Oh Not Again | November 27, 2007 10:07 PM

I do not understand why affirmative action discussion center on race. Affirmative action in American has benefitted the WHITE FEMALE more than any other class!

So why are we even connecting affirmative action with genetically inferior intelligence of blacks when it is white females who are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action?

Why are we not associating the intellectually inferiority of white females with affirmative action?

I find it totally disengenuous that white America focuses on blacks as if they have been the primary problem with affirmative action and yet white females are NOT?

This is nothing but racism and folks need to realize that, learn the facts and focus on educating the public as to who the true beneficiaries are of Affirmative action and that is the overall the white male, as he marries the affirmative action'd white female who was promoted over blacks, asians and hispanics and those affording the white males additional financial earnings as part of a dual income couple.

If we want to focus on the problem with affirmative action let's start with the white female and how her being able to leap frog over entire ethnic groups to the front of the line impacted society, university and corporate promotions and especially the white male.

that is the real elephant in the room that hasn't been discussed. White females do not support affirmative action because they label it as a 'black handout' and white males encourage that label so that the white female does not recognize that she is really the target for dismantling affirmative action as it allows the white male to remain dominant in the finacial sector when it comes to earnings and not have to compete with white females.

Blacks are not the problem...they are the scapegoat for the true issue that white males have with affirmative action.

Posted by vicissitude | November 27, 2007 10:12 PM

Davido,

I said that the jump shot became widely used in the 1950's. That doesn't mean a handful of players weren't experimenting with it earlier. According to this Answers.com entry:

"In the NBA's early days, most players attempted field goals with both feet planted on the ground, a technique now known as a "set shot". Paul Arizin, a Philadelphia Warriors player in the early 1950s, was the first to perfect the jump shot.[1] Over time, many players starting copying his jump shot, and it has become the most prevalent technique for shooting from the field."

Also, what Steve Sailer said.

Sailer has also hypothesized elsewhere about why the minority of white players in the NBA tend to be foreign; check his site if you're interested.

If you don't think there's a hereditary component to athletic success, and that there are average differences in athletic (and other) abilities between different groups, I don't know what I can say to convince you. If you won't believe what your own eyes show you every time you watch the NBA or the NFL, than nothing I'm going to write here will convince you.

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 10:22 PM

The esoteric meaning of tonight's Seinfeld re-run was a critique of affirmative action.

Kramer seeks to provide affirmative action for some Russian immigrants by getting Jerry to allow them to install free (buy illegal) cable.

When the Russiams show up they are a bit rough around the edges and Elain is having a baby shower featuring her respectable middle class female friends.

The Russians were symbolic stand ins for African Americans - and Elain and her friends symbolized bourgesois American normality - except for the fact one dated George and one had dated Jerry.

So this particular episode was rightist.

Posted by Comment | November 27, 2007 10:24 PM

Davido wants to know where are all the West African sprinters?

Any casual track fan would know of Frankie Fredericks of Namibia who won four silver medals in the 100m and 200m springs in 1992-1996 Olympics.

But, it's easy to look up actual data on the Internet. By going to

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

we can see that men have run 100 meters in less than 10.00 seconds 346 times going back to Jimmy Hines at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. 345 of the 346 were accomplished by men of West African descent, while the one exception was by a half Australian Aborigine-half Irishman.

57 of the 346 times under 10.00 seconds were recorded by sprinters representing West African nations (or, in a couple of cases, Nigerian-born runners competing for Portugal and Qatar).

So, West African nations would dominate the men's 100m sprint, if not for the West African diaspora. Clearly, the better nutrition, coaching, and, no doubt, drugs available in the West has made the West African diaspora better than West Africa, but the West African talent advantage over all other races is overwhelmingly clear.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 27, 2007 10:24 PM

Davido points out: "The longest period that anyone has held a sprint world record was the nearly seventeen years that Pietro Mennea of Italy [i.e., white] held the record in the 200..."

I love being thrown hanging curveballs like this. As I wrote in 1997:

"Pietro Mennea's world record in the men's 200 meters, which endured from 1979 until Michael Johnson broke it in 1996 was a classic "Beamonesque" record. It was a full quarter of a second (or 1.25%) better than any other time Mennea ever ran. This was because it was set in Mexico City's 7,300 ft. altitude with a tailwind 90% of the legal limit. Making admittedly arguable adjustments for altitude and wind, Mennea's run would appear to be the equivalent of 20.00 seconds at sea level with no wind. In contrast, Carl Lewis' 19.80 into a headwind at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics would appear to be the equivalent of a 19.52 under Mennea's conditions."

http://www.isteve.com/gengap96.HTM

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 27, 2007 10:30 PM

Seinfeld is obviously very bright - Brilliant, in many respects. But he did not go to Harvard. Perhaps he did not get into the school of his choice and then decided to turn that lemony grudge into comic lemonade.

Interesting that he put Kramer into the traditional role of "white liberal" admissions director - Buy having the clownish Kramer be the one to try to offer the Russians cable brigands the chance to install free illegal cable in Jerry's apartment (symbol of ivy league?)

When Kramer alluded to the Russians ability to slow down the gas meter -- This may have been Jerry's esoteric pushback against perceptions of black crime in NY in the 90s. Since the Russians were basically symbols for blacks.

Posted by Comment | November 27, 2007 10:54 PM

The fact admitted it's now necessary to degrade the accomplishment. Jews only dominated basketball because the game was shit. The "argument" is as follows, via Steve Sailer: pre-War basketball was "lame", athletically speaking, because "basketball was not a very popular sport in America." Rephrased, Pre-war basketball was "lame", athletically speaking, because "I can't even name any basketball stars before Hank Luisetti of Stanford introduced the one-handed shot to the East at a celebrated game at in 1936." Or, pre-War basketball was "lame", athletically speaking, because "The black sports between the wars were primarily baseball, boxing, and, at the middle class / college-going level, track and field."

How do I respond? By noting the nonsequitur, or correcting the history (that there were collegiate teams, hundreds of leagues, hundreds of barnstorming teams, an all black league (the ABL, formed in 1926), the Harlem Globetrotters (founded in 1926, in South Side Chicago!) I think I'll just move on.

Fred, no doubt because of his Azskenazi heritage or whatever, understands what an argument is and so actually presents evidence addressed to the proposition: pre-War basketball was lame, he says, because 1) the game mandated a tip-off after baskets; and 2) the jump shot was rare.

Well, the tip-off rule was tossed in the mid-thirties (1936), right about when the ball was made smaller and dribbling more encouraged. And since Jewish pre-eminence lasted til the mid to late forties, we must conclude that the Jews found the change hardly that taxing. As for the jump-shot, it does seem to be an artifact of post-Jewish basketball. But it's not at all clear to me how Jewish players who could run, jump, pass and shoot two footed as well as their black and gentile peers could not also have taken a jump-shot.

Of course it's true that the basketball of yore is not athletically the same as the basketball of today--it's not even close. But turgid though it may seem today, it was at the time the most fleet-footed, fast paced thing going. And Jewish players, against the blacks and gentiles with whom they played, were for a time pre-eminent. Remember Paul Gallico, pre-Sailerite and longtime sports editor for the New York Daily News: "Curiously...above all others the game appeals to the temperment of the Jews. [While] a good Jewish football player is a rarity...Jews flock to basketball by the thousands [because] it places a premium on an alert, scheming mind...flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smart aleckness, traits naturally appealing to the Hebrew with his Oriental background." The game was quick, and so were the jews!

As for what this proves regarding genetics: Nothing!!!

Also, this is funny: "I love being thrown hanging curveballs like this"

and then

"Making admittedly arguable adjustments for altitude and wind..."

Looks like you hit it just foul.

Posted by Mark | November 27, 2007 11:50 PM

So Steve, I ask where are all the West African sprinters and you answer me with ONE name. In fact here is what you wrote, "where are all the West African sprinters? Any casual track fan would know of Frankie Fredericks of Namibia." So Fredericks (whose name I do know) is "a" or "the" West African sprinters?

And Steve; "Clearly, the better nutrition, coaching, and, no doubt, drugs available in the West has made the West African diaspora better than West Africa, but the West African talent advantage over all other races is overwhelmingly clear."

And your evidence for this unsupported assertion is what exactly? African nations have had access to top coaching talent since the sixties as coaches from Europe and the US have been hired by the Olympic committies of African nations to develop thier programs. It also takes a great deal of time, talent and excellent nutrition to train distance runners too. So unless you want to make the case that the East African nations (Kenya largely but Tanzania and Ethiopia as well) that have produced great distance runners have some material advantage that West African nations don't have when it comes to supplying the needs of elite athletes, your argument doesn't wash.

Besides, African runners have been running and training in the US since the 70's when American colleges started to recruit them to run at the collegiate level, usually at middle and long distances. These days elite athletes can and do train (and have access to drugs) anywhere in the world with pretty much whoever they want and still the diaspora dominates the sprints.

So I don't think what appears to be a rich nations vs poor nations argument explains this especially since the English speaking Caribbean, relatively poor and with only a fraction of West Africa's population has produced more world class sprinters.

I also pointed out in my post another curiosity that you haven't addressed. The diaspora runners who have dominated the sprints don't include athletes from countries that certainly have West African descendants but were French, Spanish or Portuguese colonial possessions. Why is this? I didn't point this out to refute something you said so much as I find it fascinating and difficult to explain. It points up the point that I've been trying to make, that genetic explanations only go so far.

As for Mennea, I mentioned his record because he was also an Olympic champion and I don't imagine the race he set the record in had an all European field. I may have thrown you a hanging curveball but it appears that you only have warning track power.

And I'm disappointed in you Steve. I mean I do all this work and I get from you what; Frankie Fredericks? Sheesh!

Fred, show me where I said that there is no "hereditary component to athletic success." You can't because not only have I not said it, I've conceded it and in one case suggested a reason for it. The questions is what else is going on and what else explains the things we've been discussing? Which points us back to the primary question; what are the other possible explanations for differences in iq besides genes?

Posted by davido | November 27, 2007 11:56 PM

Davido, I think we've both become familiar with the Sailer method. Large quantities of text self-assuredly written. The cogency of the stuff is another matter.

He's clearly bright though, with the sort of mind that just devours information and spews it out. And its this spewing thats the problem.

I also suspect he's the sort who simply must have the last word, so let's let him have it and be done with this tedious subject.

Posted by Mark | November 28, 2007 12:10 AM

I find it disappointing that I'm so late to this thread and no one has made the argument for AA. Affirmative Action has been one of the most successful governmental programs of all time. The program really started with integration of the primary schools by forced busing in the first generation of blacks post-Civil Rights. That generation graduated high school and had kids that demanded equal treatment in admissions and hiring. Graduation rates for this generation were low mostly because the black population had no material assets on which to rely. Their parents couldn't put them through school (no house) and high dropout and low graduation rates resulted from a lack of wealth. In the last ten years, the graduation rate for gen-y blacks has been skyrocketing, especially among black women.
In fact, one of Steve Sailor's favorite journal's The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education conceded:

http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07preview.html

According to the latest statistics from Mount Holyoke College, Pomona College, Smith College, Wellesley College, and Macalester College, a black student on these campuses is more likely to complete the four-year course of study and receive a diploma than is a white student... it is interesting to note that three of the five institutions are women’s colleges.
At some institutions the difference in black and white graduation rates is very small. Washington University in St. Louis has a 91 percent graduation rate for both blacks and whites. At Wake Forest University, Hamilton College, and Vanderbilt University, the white student graduation rate is only one percentage point higher than the rate for blacks. At Amherst College, Harvard University, Grinnell College, and Bryn Mawr College, the racial difference is only two percentage points.

At the Ivy League schools Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Yale, and Brown, the black graduation rates are relatively high, and in all instances they are five percentage points or less below the graduation rate for white students. At Penn, Dartmouth, and Cornell, there is at least a seven percentage point racial gap in graduation rates.

All told, there are 36 high-ranking colleges and universities that have a favorable black-white graduation rate difference of eight percentage points or less. Three years ago there were only 30. Five years ago only 16 high-ranking colleges and universities had a graduation rate gap of eight percentage points or less. This is a strong sign of progress.

and goes on to say

It is important to recall that the dramatic rise in black student graduation rates at Berkeley occurred during a period when the university was still pursuing a strong affirmative action admissions program. These figures suggest that, contrary to the view expressed by most racial conservatives, there was a strong improvement in black graduation rates during the recent period of intense affirmative action in admissions at Berkeley.

I believe that gen-z will close the gap in wages considerably. Each generation is a pioneer and access is the key. Affirmative action programs guarantee that access and they need to be continued for at least 5 generations. Allow each generation the opportunity to advance a rung up the ladder in lifestyle. Slaves become poor; poor becomes low; low becomes middle; middle becomes upper; upper becomes elite. It seems to me like black progress is owed another few generations.

Incidentally, University of Virginia is number one among flagship state universities in graduation rate of black students (87%). Chapel-Hill tied for second at 72%. Berkley is 4th graduating 70% of it's black students while Michigan is tied for 5th with 68%.

Harvard is number 1 in graduation rate of black students among the 56 high-ranking universities.

Posted by Just Karl | November 28, 2007 12:27 AM

davido writes:

"So Steve, I ask where are all the West African sprinters and you answer me with ONE name. In fact here is what you wrote, "where are all the West African sprinters? Any casual track fan would know of Frankie Fredericks of Namibia." So Fredericks (whose name I do know) is "a" or "the" West African sprinters?"

Here are the names of sprinters representing West African nations (or Nigerians hired to represent richer countries like Portugal and Qatar in the Olympics) who have run 100 meters in less than 10.00 seconds:

Adekotunbo Olusoji Fasuba
Frank Fredericks
Seun Ogunkoya
Francis Obikwelu
Davidson Ezinwa
Olapade Adeniken
Deji Aliu
Uchenna Emedolu
Daniel Effiong
Leonard Myles-Mills
Abdul Aziz Zakari
Samuel Francis

And here is the name of all the men in the history of the world not of West African descent who have broken 10.00 seconds:

Patrick Johnson

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 28, 2007 12:52 AM

>>What does affirmative action have to do with the scientific debate over what role genetics plays in intelligence?

Everything according to Sullivan and others who share his views. I have to say this is one of the most absurd things Sullivan has ever written - and that's saying a lot. His argument is that the whole basis for affirmative action (blacks are at the bottom socio-economically because of things like racism, discrimination, history of segregation and slavery) is false because blacks have lower IQs. I guess he doesn't see the non-sequitur (they could have lower IQs and still be massively disadvantaged because of racism, discrimination, history of segregation and slavery).

In any case, I'm glad Sullivan wrote what he did, because he really cleared the air: this isn't about the noble quest for scientific Truth -- it is about policy. It is about affirmative action. "If we can just prove that blacks fail because they are genetically inferior, the whole basis for liberal social policy collapses! Hoorah!"

Wow.

Posted by jim | November 28, 2007 12:59 AM

"The questions is what else is going on and what else explains the things we've been discussing? Which points us back to the primary question; what are the other possible explanations for differences in iq besides genes?"

Davido,

The possible explanations for differences in IQ besides genes are the environmental factors. The problem is that whatever environmental factor you correct for, you still have the black-white IQ gap -- even among the children of affluent black parents with graduate degrees. So Occam's Razor suggests that there is a significant hereditary component.

Just as in the basketball analogy, I'm sure you and I can think of some non-genetic reasons for the Jewish under-representation in the NBA - e.g., stereotype bias, poor work ethic among Jews, systematic discrimination, a legacy of pogroms, etc. Occam's Razor suggests that there is a significant hereditary component to this under-representation though, since none of these factors has prevented Jewish success in other areas.

Posted by Fred | November 28, 2007 1:33 AM

"The problem is that whatever environmental factor you correct for, you still have the black-white IQ gap"

No. The first (often only) thing any test measures is test-taking ability. There is a black-white test-taking gap, not the same thing at all as an IQ gap.

Posted by michael farris | November 28, 2007 3:35 AM

Jim - exactly.

Posted by Dan S. | November 28, 2007 5:51 AM

Michael Farris: Life is one big IQ test. Leaving aside organic impairments like deafness or serious psychological disorders, saying people lack "test-taking ability" is the same as saying they are stupid. IQ tests measure the ability to do well on IQ tests, which turns out to be a good proxy for the ability to do well in life (because psychometricians have refined IQ tests to ensure that IQ scores are a good proxy for the ability-complex of interest).

Just Karl: AA is an extremely harmful government program. There is a debate over how much it harms US GDP (an estimate of 4% is not extreme but the question is hard to answer and the literature is muddied by mendacious lowball estimates from AA proponents; however, see how much California saved by reducing AA in government contracting after Prop. 209). There can be no debate over two of AA's ill effects, though, because they are inherent: (1) AA practiced or compelled by government agencies violates the Constitution and principle of legal equality for all citizens and directly harms every citizen who loses out to an AA beneficiary. Racial AA is racism pure and simple, regardless of which skin color gets favored. (2) AA specifically and intentionally reduces the quality of student bodies and workforces by replacing better qualified candidates with less qualified ones. That is not an accident, it's the whole point. If AA beneficiaries were more qualified they wouldn't need AA.

Posted by Oh Not Again | November 28, 2007 12:47 PM

"The problem is that whatever environmental factor you correct for, you still have the black-white IQ gap -- even among the children of affluent black parents with graduate degrees. So Occam's Razor suggests that there is a significant hereditary component."

Fred,

You haven't corrected for every environmental factor; one significant factor that hasn't been corrected for is culture. We know that the modern inner city underclass culture in this country promotes anti-intellectualism, demeans academic achievement, and destigmatizes dysfunctional behaviors, like out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, our modern media has done much to glorify this underclass culture and its dysfunctionality among American youths of all races; however, it has specifically marketed this underclass culture as a marker of black authenticity. Thus many middle-class African-American parents & grandparents are finding that their children are not emulating their forebears' dilligence in achieving academically and delaying instant gratification. Occam's Razor would tell you that this effect is the more likely cause of the stalled progress in closing the Black-White gap in IQ scores, instead of your preferred explanation of genetics.

After all, the Black-White IQ gap in this country used to be as great as 25-30 points, but that gap closed as more opportunities for education and upward mobility appeared for African-Americans in the 20th century. If genetics were as strong as you, Steve Sailer, Chris Ford, and Harry think it is, this gap should have remained this large.

In addition, we see this gap is driven by the academic achievements of native-born African-Americans who are descendents of slaves. IQ test scores show a significant differnce between the IQ scores of native-born descendents of slaves, and African immigrants and their native-born descendents. Considering that these groups share similiar genes, if genes were the primary determining factor, this difference should not occur. Occam's razor would tell us that cultural differences between African-Americans descended from slaves, and African immigrants and their descendents must be contributing to this gap, especially since African immigrants are known for their stern disapproval of the many dysfunctional and anti-education elements of ghetto life.

Posted by eltoro | November 28, 2007 1:35 PM

Just Karl: As I pointed out early on (try scrolling upwards) AA beneficiaries are not able to pass the SES AA gives them on to their children very well. Your argument that the need for AA will evaporate after AA creates a self- perpetuating black professional class is false (it resembles nothing so much as the old Soviet line that state socialism would wither away after it had taught the people true communism).

(Not only will demand for AA persist until we admit that it cannot accomplish what you (and Sandra Day O'Connor) want it to, the existence of AA for some groups leads others to demand AA as well. AA fractures society into groups competing for unmerited favors.)

Also, you can't prove that AA beneficiaries are well qualified by pointing to their graduation rates because AA continues after admission in the form of soft grading, phony courses ("Black Studies"), etc.

As for Harvard, Harvard gets first pick of all college applicants in the country. As I also pointed out, there are many smart blacks (though fewer as a proportion of population than whites or asians-- the bell curve in action) so Harvard admits them, the crême- de- la- crême, and leaves other schools to fill their racial quotas with underqualified applicants. It's no surprise that Harvard's ultra-select blacks do well, just as it's no surprise that U of Michigan's leftovers do poorly. (Some other top schools tread Harvard's path, of course.)

The "mismatch hypothesis" strongly suggests that AA harms many blacks by leading them to flunk out of fancier schools rather than succeed in slightly less prestigious ones. The problem is that racial quotas reflect the proportion of blacks in the general population, not the much smaller proportion of blacks with high academic qualifications. At every prestige level, schools must accept less-qualified blacks than whites/asians in order to fill AA quotas. But with top schools taking the top black applicants plus the middling black applicants to fill their quotas, middle schools must accept barely-middling and low-scoring black applicants to fill their quotas. In most schools many black students are much less qualified than their white/asian peers and tend to perform poorly. If the top schools didn't have quotas they could leave the middling applicants to the middle schools, where they would likely do better since their abilities would more closely match those of their white/asian peers.

Posted by Oh Not Again | November 28, 2007 1:40 PM

It's interesting that the number of African Americans at UC schools has dropped significantly since Affrimative Action was dropped at UC Schools, specifically UCLA. The end of UC affirmative action took the 10 UC campuses off the recruitment path for African Americans and opened the door for private schools that treat bright African American scholars the way UCLA and Cal agressively recruits football players. Why should top African American students pay their own way for UCLA or Berkeley when Harvard, Yale, Stanford, USC or Cal Tech says we because we want more African Americans, we'll fly you first class to visit the campus, have you meet our nobel laurates and pulitzer prize winners and celebrity alumni, pay your full college costs, provide plane tickets home, summer jobs and other perks. Private school have increased their African American numbers via agressive Affirmative Action.

Posted by harryo | November 28, 2007 1:43 PM

Eltoro,

If you think that the children of affluent, educated black parents are inhibited by culture, you are either ignorant or racist. Most of these kids go to majority white schools, just like the kids of affluent, educated whites. They are no more influenced by rap videos than Matt Yglesias was. I had a best friend growing up who was the son of affluent, educated black parents. They may have played Stevie Wonder records at home and decorated their place with African art, but they sent him to a high-end Catholic school while I went to the local mostly-black one (perhaps to compensate, he ended up going to a historically black college, and the Dow Component company he works now for sends him back there every year to recruit).

As for the children of African immigrants, like all legal immigrants, these are a self-selecting group. An African immigrant needs to have a certain level of intelligence and ambition to even make it to the United States typically. If you look at a random selection of Africans, you will find significantly lower IQs than African Americans, despite the lack of rap videos.

Posted by Fred | November 28, 2007 2:02 PM

Would it be okay for me to conclude that my white, redneck, school-failing, crime-predilected, Southern neighbors while growing up were genetically of lower intelligence?

Posted by El Cid | November 28, 2007 2:09 PM

"If you think that the children of affluent, educated black parents are inhibited by culture, you are either ignorant or racist. Most of these kids go to majority white schools, just like the kids of affluent, educated whites. They are no more influenced by rap videos than Matt Yglesias was"

Fred,

Then why is the corrosive effect of dysfunctional underclass culture on the Black community as a whole such a prevalent topic of discussion WITHIN the African-American community itself? You must not actually watch tv programs or listen to radio shows or read books whose primary audience is African-American, because this is a central topic of discussion among all these aspects of Black-oriented media. Moreover, this discussion didn't just start with Bill Cosby; it has been a central topic for at least 2 decades, if not longer. If you were a regular reader of black writers like Clarence Page or Leonard Pitts or Carl Rowan or Tavis Smiley or Tony Brown, you would have noticed this.

No, Fred, if anybody here is ignorant or racist about black people, it is you.

Posted by eltoro | November 28, 2007 2:28 PM

"As for the children of African immigrants, like all legal immigrants, these are a self-selecting group. An African immigrant needs to have a certain level of intelligence and ambition to even make it to the United States typically."

Yet when African immigrants criticize African-Americans, they criticize them on the basis of behavior. These African immigrants believe if that if native-born African-Americans would emulate the academic work ethic of African immigrants, and eschew the dysfunctional behaviors associated with the American urban ghetto, the fortunes of the African-American community as a whole would rise immensely. Moreover, these African immigrants work toward shielding their native-born children from internalizing the dysfunctional norms of the inner city, because superior genes by themselves don't guarantee superior IQs, educational attainment, and financial success.

Posted by eltoro | November 28, 2007 3:44 PM

Fred,

I suggest you pay a visit to your black best friend, and ask him about having to constantly fight against the corrosive influence of inner-city culture, before you tell me that his children are no more affected by gangsta rap videos and other glorified depictions of dysfunctional inner-city culture than Matt Yglesias is.

BTW, when was the last time you saw a gangsta rap video marketed as a depiction of Jewish-American authenticity?

Posted by eltoro | November 28, 2007 4:19 PM

Steve,

You say "Here are the names of sprinters representing West African nations (or Nigerians hired to represent richer countries like Portugal and Qatar in the Olympics) who have run 100 meters in less than 10.00 seconds:" You go on to list a dozen names.

The number of Olympic 100m champions among this group is...zero.

The number of Olympic medalists among this group is...two, with a total of three silvers between them (Fredericks has two).

West Africa has a considerably larger population base from which to draw athletes than does the Caribbean but Caribbean runners, including those whose heritage is such but who themselves are from Canada and Great Britain have collected thirteen total medals in the 100 including four golds. So what's going here, genetically or otherwise?

One incredibly obvious thing to point out is that the majority of blacks in the Americas have some European genetic heritage as well. Is that what's causing them to run faster than their African brethren? After all, using 1960 as a base year, the debut year for great African Olympic talent, more sprinters from European backgrounds (5) have won Olympic medals in the 100 than have West Africans (2).

Looking at the World Championships from the first year, 1983 doesn't change much.

West African champions; zero, other medals; zero
Caribbean champions; THREE, other medals; TEN

This should complicate your thesis which links West Africa with the diaspora genetically and assumes a common genetic heritage apparently unaltered by the very different histories/cultures of these peoples over the last five centuries. Your conception of race and of the differences that flow from that concept seems to depend on ruling out even the slightest variation from your thesis. Fine, here's one more;

The number of non-English speaking Olympic champions of West African descent from the Americas (to address an argument you haven't replied to) at 100m; zero

Medalists; two silver, one bronze but to be fair one of the silvers was in Moscow in 1980 when the US boycotted.

World Champions; zero, Medalists; zero

And this is true even though non English speaking people of West African descent in this hemisphere outnumber English speaking ones from the Caribbean who, if you think about it, are extraordinarily overrepresented among the world's great sprinters.

Explain.

Posted by davido | November 28, 2007 4:24 PM

"Now, given that my fellow Ashkenazi Jews are not known for our foot speed or vertical leaping ability, and African Americans are, on average, known to be superior in both, that should help clarify why Jewish NBA players are so rare today."

Fred,

Gentile whites like the Irish and the Slavs are not know for those abilities either, yet these folks have found a role in the modern NBA. As Mark has pointed out, Jews outperformed their Gentile white counterparts in basketball before; why wouldn't Jews today dominate in the roles now performed by Gentile whites? After all, contrary to Steve Sailer's misperceptions, the average Jew does not possess the athletic ineptitude of a Woody Allen character.

Posted by eltoro | November 28, 2007 5:04 PM

"saying people lack "test-taking ability" is the same as saying they are stupid"

No, test-taking is a skill. In my peak test-taking period I could get A's on multiple choice tests even when I only had a dim understanding of the material (I often did worse when I knew the material very well).

I've known incredibly smart people who failed multiple choice tests in subjects they knew very well because they weren't used to that format (harder to find such people now as MC has spread a lot wider).

Multiple choice is the easiest test code to crack but others have tricks too and figuring out how the test was made is often over half the battle of passing it.

When I give tests the results very often don't coincide with the quality of day to day work that the students in question do (I never use MC). Some people, aside from intelligence are just better at test-taking than others.

Posted by michael farris | November 28, 2007 5:53 PM

eltoro,

According to Woody Allen and contrary to the image he's created in his films, he was a pretty good shortstop back in the day.

And one more anomaly for Steve to ponder:

Between the Olympics and the World Championships there have been a total of fifty-one medals awarded in the 100m since 1983 (the year the Worlds began). Twenty-Five of those have gone to African-Americans including twelve gold medals.

Twenty-three have gone to runners who are from or descend from the English speaking Caribbean (and represent Canada or England). Five of those are gold.

Three have gone to runners from West African countries, none gold.

And that's it. For all of the West African descendants in the Americas from non-English speaking countries, none have medaled. And St Kitts has almost as many medals (two) as all of the countries from West Africa have combined.

Steve?

Posted by davido | November 28, 2007 6:17 PM

Michael Farris: you just don't get it.

Multiple choice is the easiest test code to crack but others have tricks too and figuring out how the test was made is often over half the battle of passing it.

"Figuring out" the test is something smart people excel at. People who can't "figure out" how to deal with a test are (on average) less smart. Yes, there's a training/familiarity component-- but IQ tests are normed on large samples to wash out questions of training.

IQ tests contain many test items (mostly not multiple- choice, though some multiple- choice tests like the SAT make reasonable proxies for IQ). They are about as reliable when given to 8 year-olds as to adults. They are highly correlated whether given orally, in writing, or merely by pictograms (e.g., Ravens). In fact, IQ is fairly well correlated with some very simple memory tests (backwards digits recall) and with reaction-time tests for which no one can plausibly suggest an influence from "test taking ability." Results from different IQ tests given to the same subjects are highly correlated even when the subjects are naïve to some of the tests. There is simply no reason to think there is any "test taking ability" other than general intelligence which affects IQ scores in the general case (I'll cheerfully concede the odd panicky subject who hyperventilates so badly when he sees the nice psychometrician across the table that he can't say his own name).

Some people, aside from intelligence are just better at test-taking than others.

That's generally irrelevant to group results, where errors in one direction are balanced by errors in the other.

(The robustness of IQ tests is not accidental. For example, the US military found that low-IQ people were more likely to just give up and refuse to complete its first computerized AFQT IQ test after seeing a string of tough (high-IQ) items even though there were items in the test (which the computer had not yet shown to them) that they could have answered. Note that these were all low-IQ people, so that version of the test was fine for sorting out smart people, but failed to differentiate accurately between dull and extra-dull test takers. The military rearranged the presentation of test items so that duller people would see easier ones first. That way they were less likely to become discouraged before they revealed the true extent of their abilities. Please note: the military discovered the problem early and corrected their test. That is what IQ test creators do. Well-known, widely-used IQ tests probably do not have serious biases related to "test-taking ability."

(You could make a (big!) name for yourself in psychological circles by coming up with a way to measure "test-taking ability" that doesn't correlate nearly perfectly with IQ. Perhaps you should try before you bombard people interested in the subject with your idle speculations.

(Or, perhaps you are confusing ability in some narrow area with general ability (IQ)? For example, someone might be a musical genius yet have a low IQ. If you chose to (mis-)use the word "intelligence" to label musical talent, you might then suggest that only a lack of "test-taking ability" could cause a highly "intelligent" musician to get a low IQ score. You would only be right to the extent that your idiosyncratic use of words confused your listeners.)

Posted by Oh Not Again | November 28, 2007 7:05 PM

Would it be okay for me to conclude that my white, redneck, school-failing, crime-predilected, Southern neighbors while growing up were genetically of lower intelligence?

Georgia was once a penal colony.

What smells worse than a Bulldog's ass?
A Bulldog cheerleader.

What is short, fat, ugly, and leaves a puddle of drool wherever it goes?
A Bulldog cheerleader.

What barks, has hair on it's back, is of genetically lower intelligence, and pees in the hedgerow of Sanford Stadium?
A Bulldog cheerleader.

OK I'll stop. Tebow for Heisman. Tip your waitress.

Posted by Just Karl | November 28, 2007 9:31 PM

" ...saying people lack "test-taking ability" is the same as saying they are stupid."

That's a display of simplistic reductionism that suggests more than a little irony in his championing IQ scores so much,

Fred's view of Occam;s Razor is also simplistic - Cliffs Notes version. Perhaps?

Posted by Comment | November 29, 2007 12:39 AM

The simplistic and fallacious arguments that many (not all) in the IQ uber alles community presents an interesting sociological phenom. NIH and NIMH should look into this.

It's also interesting why people with the highest IQs tend to be the most dismissive of the importance of IQ.

Posted by Comment | November 29, 2007 12:46 AM

Oh, I get it! Farris, perhaps you've confused IQ tests with tests of memorized facts. IQ tests measure problem- solving ability. Many (highly predictive) IQ tests don't ask for facts at all, those that do are really testing ability to "soak up" social knowledge. Anyone who does well on tests of facts, without being an expert on those facts (e.g., by "figuring out" the test structure, or by analogical reasoning), has a high IQ. People who do poorly on tests of facts, despite knowing the facts, have low IQ's.

Posted by Oh Not Again | November 29, 2007 1:10 AM

"Many (highly predictive) IQ tests"

How is measuring some supposedly measurable innate quality predictive? My guess is that it's measuring something else (see game, rules of).

"That's generally irrelevant to group results, where errors in one direction are balanced by errors in the other."

What's the reason for talking about group results at all?

I will agree that encouraging students from any ethnic background that come from families without multi-generational academic backgrounds to attend the most 'prestigious' school possible does not help said students. If your parents didn't go to college, no matter smart you are, going to Harvard or the like is probably not a good idea.

Set your sights a lot lower (without the human educational capital in your background it will still be tougher than you thought but doable). It's not even that the curriculum at the less prestigious school is necessarily weaker but it will probably offer more in terms of formal and informal support structures for students from non-academic backgrounds than a more prestigious school would (and that can make a lot of difference).

Finally, my view of AA (largely formed from working in an office that distributed minority scholarship checks) is that it's not meant to help individual minority students at all. It's a PR ploy to avoid any real change in the status quo.

Posted by michael farris | November 29, 2007 3:56 AM

Michael Farris: "Many (highly predictive) IQ tests." How is measuring some supposedly measurable innate quality predictive? My guess is that it's measuring something else (see game, rules of).

IQ scores (from IQ tests...) predict performance in school, in the workplace, and in life. Read the reference then get back to us.

What's the reason for talking about group results at all?

Because affirmative action (government-approved racial discrimination) distributes benefits or penalties based on group membership.

...encouraging students from any ethnic background that come from families without multi-generational academic backgrounds to attend the most 'prestigious' school possible does not help said students. If your parents didn't go to college, no matter smart you are, going to Harvard or the like is probably not a good idea.

There's no evidence that "multi-generational academic backgrounds" affect individual academic performance, except in the sense (which I thought you disagreed with) that there is a genetic component to intelligence.

Really, America's colleges and graduate schools and professional workplaces are filled with people whose parents and grandparents and so-forth didn't go to college (because they were, just for example, poor farmers or fisherfolk in Vietnam; or diesel mechanics in Omaha; or (a few generations ago) tailors in New York). The SAT test was originally invented to facilitate the selection of bright people from modest backgrounds to attend college and it worked very well (too well for Harvard, when it found out how many bright Jews with tailor parents wanted in). You may argue for "cultural" influences if you wish, but there's nothing stopping parents of any race encouraging their kids to study.

Set your sights a lot lower (without the human educational capital in your background it will still be tougher than you thought but doable). It's not even that the curriculum at the less prestigious school is necessarily weaker but it will probably offer more in terms of formal and informal support structures for students from non-academic backgrounds than a more prestigious school would (and that can make a lot of difference).

Well, okay, but the whole purpose of AA is to move people into schools or workplaces above the level they're really qualified for.

Finally, my view of AA (largely formed from working in an office that distributed minority scholarship checks) is that it's not meant to help individual minority students at all. It's a PR ploy to avoid any real change in the status quo.

If that's so, why don't we abolish it to get rid of its evil effects, which include depriving well-qualified whites and Asians of school admissions and jobs so that unqualified non-Asian minorities can take their places and waste them. If AA is just a PR ploy then we won't miss it, will we?

Posted by Oh Not Again | November 29, 2007 1:36 PM

Blame Affirmative Action

Comments (136)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories