Race and IQ

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke2/16/18
A High School Science Fair Project Ignites a Storm  •  We don’t know the student’s name, but we do know that he hit a nerve — in fact, he hit a whole bunch of them. Identified only as a boy of Asian descent at C.K. McClatchy High School in California, the teen’s recent science-fair project, “Race and IQ,” propounded the thesis that differences in groups’ average intelligence influence their academic performance. He couldn’t win, though, because his project was removed after parents, staff and other students became “upset” and one girl said she felt “unsafe and uneasy.” The irony?

A project on evolution would no doubt have been well received — even though an assumption of racial differences is implicit in evolutionary theory.

In fact, The Sacramento Bee, which hasn’t yet evolved out of the progressive primordial soup, mentioned that the student’s thesis is associated with eugenics (which the Bee casts negatively), the science of improving the human race via selective breeding. The paper is likely unaware, however, that the term “eugenics” itself was coined by Sir Francis Galton — a cousin of famed evolutionist Charles Darwin — and that Galton made clear that in his eugenicist endeavors, he was merely building on his cousin’s work.

Philosopher G.K. Chesterton once noted that if people “were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.” This is easy to understand: What are the chances that different groups could have “evolved” isolated from one another for eons — subject to different environments, stresses, procreation-influencing cultural imperatives and adaptive realities — and ended up identical in every worldly measure? Why, even if the peoples evolved isolated in identical environments, the separation alone would make the prospects of winding up completely “equal” a virtual statistical impossibility.

Whatever you believe about evolution, it’s clear that equality is not a thing of this world. Do we see it in nature? Some species can dominate others or are more adaptable, which is why the rat is a pest and the dodo is extinct (and, in fact, the rat helped drive the dodo to extinction). Even within species, some members are hardier, smarter, faster or stronger than others. There are alphas and betas, with a silverback gorilla running his troop and a dominant lion leading his pride. And different breeds of dogs have different characteristic traits, with some being more intelligent than others.

As for people, how is it that we can even characterize different groups as “groups”? Since we don’t do it based purely on location (e.g., dividing 10 boys into two groups of five, each on opposite sides of a room), we can only do so because there are differences among them. We can only speak of “men” and “women” because sex differences actually exist. Regarding the races, we know there are distinctions relating to skin color and hair, for example. It’s differences that make groups “groups.”

But are the differences only skin deep? Tay-Sachs disease is most common among Ashkenazi Jews, while sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive to people of Middle Eastern, Indian, Mediterranean and African heritage. Relative to American whites, American blacks generally have longer limbs, more sweat glands (and thus dissipate heat better), narrower pelvises and greater bone density; and black men have higher free testosterone levels than white men do. Not that it’s the focus of this article, but all these characteristics bring advantages and disadvantages.

Now, next question: Are the differences only neck high? If evolution is a reality, would its principles be operational with the body but, somehow, some way, be suspended with the brain? My, believing that would truly take faith.

Of course, whether nature, nurture or both — whether the tests are valid or not — the fact remains that we do see marked IQ differences among groups. Ashkenazi Jews score the highest of all, at 115 (the world average is currently about 88); this may explain why Jews are only 0.2 percent of the world’s population but were 22 percent of the 20th century’s Nobel Prize winners. Hong Kong and Singapore lead the country list with average IQs of 108, while many nations register far, far lower. Note that while good scientists may debate why these differences exist and how meaningful they are, that they exist is not in dispute.

Of course, some may quibble with the numbers I provided or the group differences I cited, but the details aren’t really the point. The point is, again, that evolution and Equality Dogma contradict one another. Embracing both is akin to believing it likely that on two different occasions, you could spin a giant bin with one million numbers in it, remove them randomly and put them in a row, and they would end up in the precise same order each time. Random processes yield variable results.

That is, unless you believe that God guided evolution. Even this belief, however, allows for the inequality that is the world’s apparent norm. How could this be? It’s simple: Equality is our hang-up — not God’s.

Is “equality” emphasized in any great, time-tested religious canon? It’s certainly only mentioned in the Bible in reference to weights and measures. In fact, Christian theology holds that in that perfect, sinless realm of happiness — Heaven — we will not all have equal glory, as St Thérèse of Liseaux once explained.

As for this fold, Hell on Earth is what Equality Dogma helps create. It has spawned perverted scientific priorities that deny Truth and demand ideological determinations. We’ve seen this before. The Soviet equality dogmatists did it with Lysenkoism, insisting that acquired traits could be inherited because Marxist ideology demanded a malleable human nature. The Nazi superiority dogmatists did it with their racial theories, believing in a “master race” that could become all the more masterful through selective breeding. And we’ve combined elements of both, demanding an unnatural and unattainable equality and measuring it by racial, ethnic and sexual representation in worldly endeavor.

In a saner time, Equality Dogma would be considered a vile heresy. The truth here isn’t hard to grasp: There are differences within groups, but there are also differences among groups. We know we mustn’t paint every individual with the same brush. Why would we paint every individual group with the same one?

One group we should paint over with the label “Rejected” is equality dogmatists. The McClatchy student’s scientific methods might very well have been shoddy, but this wasn’t what got his project scuttled. Rather, The Sacramento Bee article quoted individuals who said the it was “shocking” and its creator “closed-minded”; it spoke of how people felt “upset” and “unsafe and uneasy.” What’s notable is that no one quoted said the project’s conclusion was wrong or untrue.

Oh, if asked, the critics would surely bellow, “Well, of course it’s untrue!” But it’s no accident that they didn’t think to say it; in fact, this failure is typical today when fashionable emoters react to unfashionable science. These critics don’t think to call it untrue because the truth of the matter isn’t their focus. Ideology is.

It’s feelings over facts, emotion over education. But science doesn’t exist to make us feel good or bad; its purpose is the discovery of Truth via the scientific method. People who reject this, who subordinate Truth to agenda-driven lies, are dangerous to civilization. They also are hardly progressive — except insofar as they’re progressing toward ignorance.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (165 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Race and IQ

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    A perfect example of how leftism rejects inconvenient science (and then projects this onto conservatives, of course). Most leftists don’t seem to have any idea what the scientific method is.

    I once received a pamphlet presenting a summary of Philippe Rushton’s study of racial differences. He concluded that they key was breeding, especially the number of children and how they were raised. With large broods, they were left on their own; with small ones, they were better protected from outside dangers. The latter led to better results in terms of intelligence. (He also noted that the differences weren’t all that large — but they were there.)

  2. Steve Lancaster says:

    Charles Murray must be laughing his ass off.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      You’re only laughing because Jews are always on the top of the list of race-vs-I.Q. StubbornThings members are up there as well.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Asians do well also, at least East Asians. (Oddly, according to Rushton, they actually have smaller broods than whites, who have smaller ones than blacks.)

        For what it’s worth (a friend who probably has a high IQ once said that IQ measures your ability to take IQ tests, and I think there’s a certain amount of truth in that), I once happened to see some of my ratings when visiting my VA administrator back in 1972. My IQ was listed as 137, but I have no idea which test it was, or when it was taken. Perhaps it was based on my SAT and similar scores, which tended to be around the 99th percentile.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I don’t know what my I.Q. rating is. Maybe something like 109. I forget. Some of it no doubt has to do with one’s background in solving various puzzles. If one hasn’t done many puzzles (crosswords or anything), I would think one wouldn’t be good at doing an I.Q. test for the first time.

          And I’m not discounting intelligence or I.Q. There’s no friggin’ way I could do math like Richard Feynman. There is just another level of intelligence involved in advanced mathematics.

          That said, “intelligence” is going to be judged by the geeks making the tests. I had a small run-in with geekdom yesterday. And geeks think they are the most intelligent people on the planet. But I was trying to renew my domain for my business and kept coming to a dead end. And the actual instructions emailed to me did not match the steps available online.

          But once I figured out where to go, I went through a couple steps, hit the right button, and then nothing happened. I came to a screen that had my domain name listed with the expiration date unchanged. There was a search box and a couple other lines of text but nothing that said or indicated that I had more steps to go

          After taking some time going through this process (trying to think like a geek) I stumbled upon the answer. And then, of course, it didn’t actually work. I had finally made it all the way down the geek rabbit hole only to be met with a message “Contact us by phone to complete your purchase.”

          So when I actually talked to a CSR over the phone I found out that all the stuff I had done online amounted to nothing. Nothing “took.” It’s as if I had done absolutely nothing. So basically I did the purchase of the renewal of the domain name over the phone from scratch.

          The story to draw from this is that intelligence is a very sketchy thing. One can give appearances of intelligence via making things obscure. But this site was dumb. This customer support was not intelligent although the actual person I worked with over the phone was quite helpful. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the geeks behind putting this all together assume they are smart and that anyone who has trouble with their system must be dumb.

          And that’s not to say that there aren’t specialized skills, including computer programming, that don’t require a fair amount of intelligence. But much of what passes for intelligence is illusory.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I have long believed that intelligence is the most overrated characteristic of a person. I find honesty, integrity, kindness, understanding, persistence, loyalty and a host of other attributes more important.

            For something like 50 years I have been saying, in response to people talking about high I.Q.’s, “That and $4 will get you a cup of coffee.” I have had to adjust the price of coffee for inflation.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I agree with all that, Mr. Kung. Intelligence without the guiding influence of wisdom and benevolence is worse than merely being dumb. History is chock full of “smart” people who were a menace to mankind, including Obama.

              And what we’re often dealing with in regards to “intelligence” is little more than social cunning serving power and vanity.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I have no doubt that Jack the Ripper was a very bright fellow.

                Lenin was a true intellectual. Che’ was a medical doctor. Oh yes, history and the world is full of really horrible bright people.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I can certainly say that KFZ’s point about the usefulness of IQ is all too often quite valid. My own performance on tests was no doubt helped by a good vocabulary and a lot of skill at numerical sequences, neither of which has been that useful in adult life.

                Bakunin once referred to Marxism as a pedantocracy, and totalitarian ideologies (especially Communism and Nazism) have been very popular with intellectuals (the SD was full of them).

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                A pretty good case can be made that Nazism had its roots in Malthus, Darwin and Nietzsche. A better group of intellectuals would be hard to find. Never let facts get in the way of a good theory.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Be sure to include Martin Heidegger, Mr. Kung.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        LOL
        It also makes us the target, one of many reason I favor open carry of any weapon I can purchase.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    James Watson was forced out of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 2007 due to his comments on how genetics and intelligence are connected. As I recall, he expressed concern that the only geographical area in the world where IQ test numbers had not improved over some period of time, was Africa.

    That Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helix, Nobel Prize winner and the person who built Cold Spring Harbor Lab to perhaps the best research facility for genetics in the world, could be forced out should indicate just how powerful the lying Left is.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Real Americans don’t flinch from the facts of race. If some races, by and large, score better on I.Q. tests, then so be it. It is a mere fact. But we judge people individually, not as faceless members of groups. We are not yet all a part of the evil, vicious, stupid “identity politics” movement.

      And whether blessed with a higher-than-average I.Q. or a lower-than-average one, barring the true handicap of being a categorical idiot (as opposed to an imbecile or moron), the Edisonian rule applies: “Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration.”

      It’s what you do with what you’ve got.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That individual vs. group quality is extremely important here. Blacks have, in effect, an IQ bell-curve to the left of whites (who are to the left of eastern Asians, who are to the left of Ashkenazim). But all bell curves extend all across the spectrum. So there are Ashkenazim who are idiots and blacks who are geniuses. A lot of leftists can’t grasp this, and will point to some brilliant blacks (we conservatives know of plenty, such as the great Thomas Sowell) as disproof of the racial IQ difference.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Timothy, I’ll state for the record that I might be out of phase regarding human nature. The Left’s belief is that we must suppress facts from the general population lest that population act badly because of those facts. We must lie about “global warming,” for example. If people found out it was fake, they would assume that despoiling the planet was okay. (Not the only factor in their thinking, but one of them.)

          Similarly, there’s this idea that we dare not point out that there are differences between the races or else people will have an excuse to treat others badly. One should note that way before science had any facts regarding I.Q., people treated others badly, including being racist. They need no promptings from facts.

          So we live in this current world where we must believe absolute nonsense because it’s for our own good or serves a righteous political end. But the point is a simple one: Whether someone is more or less intelligent than you is not a basis upon which to treat them better or worse.

          I’m way out in left field (perhaps right field) in thinking this way. I’m discriminating. I’m making a judgment. I’m using reason guided by a Christian morality. I’m not using facts to fulfill prejudices but noting facts and putting them in their place….certainly at least one tier down in the calculation of how you should treat someone.

          Is such thinking revolutionary? No, not at all. But such thinking today would be labeled by the evil forces of the Left (and their useful idiots) as “racist.” I would just be covering for “white privilege” or some such nonsense.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link below will take you to an article which would appear to confirm the hypothesis that “people of color”, particularly those of the LBGTQABCDEF…community, actually do have lower IQ’s.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10580

    I also believe there is clear case of mental illness involved.

  5. guidoh says:

    The point of technocracy is proximity to power. It”s never been principle or the security of the American people or acting in their interests. You can look at people like David Brock and David Horowitz to see this in action. One day they”re a left-wing radical or an arch-conservative and the next they”re on the other side. This isn”t because they had a come-to-jesus moment, it”s because they changed their estimate of the quickest route to influence and status for themselves. You can see it in Larry Summers who flip-flops from a market dogmatist to a populist based on shifts in the political winds. And you can see it in Democratic Party lobbyists who immediately go to work helping the Trump administration pass its legislative agenda.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      This isn”t because they had a come-to-jesus moment, it”s because they changed their estimate of the quickest route to influence and status for themselves.

      I’m partial to your cynicism, guidoh, even though I do think David Horowitz is (or has become) a good guy. But I’ve alway been a little suspicious of those who had surrounded themselves with the worst kinds of people for decades and then the first time they are personally bit on the ass by the consequences of their ideology (in Horowitz’s case it was a friend being murdered) you get this, “I’m shocked, shocked that the Left are such cruddy people.”

      And then these same people continue to make their living selling books and getting appearance fees in the never-ending racket of what I call (actually, Rush Limbaugh dubbed it so): The Daily Drama

      The deeper question is: Are any of us anchored into anything deeper than the convenience of the moment? Who will today say “No” if it causes them the slightest inconvenience?

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Good question. Of course, certain experiences can play a genuine role in altering views. Horowitz’s experience is a reminder of the famous maxim that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. (Alan Dershowitz responded that a liberal is a conservative who has been investigated.) As I recall, P. J. O’Rourke began switching when he started receiving paychecks, and saw how he was being taxed.

        An interesting case is Tammy Bruce. She was always pro-gun even when she considered herself a liberal overall, which indicates a capacity for heterodoxy. As a feminist who headed the LA NOW chapter, she learned her lesson during the O. J. Simpson trial. She came out against him, but liberal orthodoxy placed race above sex as a victimhood/civil rights priority. She also noted the support she got from conservatives who agreed with her, knowing that most liberals would not have behaved that way.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Horowitz’s experience is a reminder of the famous maxim that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

          Indeed. We conservatives should have no problem with the idea of “Live and learn,” nor with gaining converts, however they came about. President Reagan gave David the Medal of Freedom, and that’s good enough for me. Horowitz is also on the front lines giving speeches in hostile territory, etc., and not just bitching on the internet from the comfort of his armchair.

          But I think what guidoh mentioned does apply to many people.

          All our ideologies are fancy-free from the hardship of consequences…until they’re not. That a bucket of ice water causes some to lose their naive idealism is a good thing. Worse are those who receive the bucket, and instead of waking up, make a call for stronger controls on who can own buckets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *