Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label IQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IQ. Show all posts

Friday, September 26, 2025

My Adventure with Mensa

Critically Thinking about High IQ

John Droz Sep 26, 2025 @ Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues  

I’ve had an interesting — and somewhat revealing — relationship with Mensa and Mensa members. I’m sharing this brief version with you…

Mensa is an international organization of people who have high IQ. To join an individual has to score in the top 2% of a certified IQ test. I had done that and decided to try out the organization.

My hope was that:  

  1. members would be interesting, engaging, critically thinking people
  2. who were actively involved in important societal issues (energy, healthcare, education, etc.), and 
  3.  in creative ways.

So I applied, was accepted, started paying dues, and got their monthly magazine (Mensa Bulletin). I was assigned to the Syracuse, NY chapter.

I was disappointed in the magazine, as I found very few articles to be of interest. It seemed to me that many were vanity pieces about some obscure interest a particular member had. I saw very few that were constructively and creatively addressing societal issues.

I was unable to attend any Mensa Chapter meetings as the closest to me were 100± miles away. I did have a few phone chats with some members in my chapter, but they did not lead to anything productive.

After several months, I decided to take the initiative and sponsor a Mensa party at our lakefront home in the Adirondacks — a premier spot if I say so myself. (See a pix from our driveway, below. We were on a beautiful peninsula and had 465 feet of shoreline on Brantingham Lake, plus a nice boathouse.)

This did strike a chord as over 30 Mensa members showed up (many from a hundred miles away). Although I didn’t know any of them, most of them already knew other members. I arranged several things (boat rides, a great meal, etc.) to get people introduced and to socialize. We had a beautiful, fun Summer day, and the get-together lasted about 6 hours.

Unfortunately, the main reason for my taking a lot of time and trouble to do this did not pan out. I did not find a single person who met the three basic expectations I had (see above) for these highly intelligent people.

A few months later, I decided to stop paying dues, as this was not fruitful.

Some Lessons Learned —

Some of my takeaways from being a Mensa member are that high IQ does not assure that a person:  

  1. is a critical thinker,
  2. has wisdom, 
  3. is interesting,  
  4. is a good communicator, etc., etc.

All in all, I’m glad I tried out this experiment, as (good scientists know this) even failed trials should be illuminating…


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Leave a comment

Share

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about 1-2 times a week).

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

Intelligence and Morality Have Little in Common

Jayne Mansfield Posters and Photos ...

Over the years I’ve spent a lot of time researching information on IQ, and the more I read the more I realized IQ, while important, is highly overrated.  Jayne Mansfield had an IQ of 165, Steven Hawking’s was alleged to have been 160.  

She was an actress much lauded and remembered for her sex appeal.  She was smart enough to know what she was offering had a limited time frame and she once said no matter what happens to her, her children, who adored her, would be taken care of.  Practical smarts goes a long way.

He was a much lauded scientist who made grand pronouncements for which he was lauded, and then proved wrong.  So, did it matter how smart he was?  Most importantly he started pontificating about social issues, and while when it came to physics, I didn't have a clue what he was talking about, but when he entered my arena dealing with social issues, history  and logic, I realized that was an arena where he was dumb as dirt.  That's not practical intelligence.

Einstein, who was considered the smartest man in the world, once said if all the honey bees died mankind would be dead in five years.  He was a brilliant physicist, but he was an idiot as an entomologist.  Most of our food isn't animal pollinated, it's wind pollinated, and if every honey bee on the planet died tomorrow, it would impact no more that four to six percent of our food... and even that's a maybe prediction.  So, did it matter how smart he was. 

I once asked the head of the EPA's pesticide regulation division why our honey bees are called European honey bees?  He didn't know, so I told him it was because European settlers brought them over from Europe.  Then I asked him how did everything get pollinated before that.  And he smiled realizing how foolish all these claims of disaster and honey bees really are.

Here’s the reality of selective breeding. If you have a highly intelligent population breeding in a small population you will get a lot of really intelligent children. If you continue to breed strictly within that population you will end up with a lot of negative genetic issues and a lot of sterility, the Pitcairn Islander story is one example.  

If you breed a lot of really intelligent people from different genetic groups you not only get a lot of really smart people, they're healthier and stronger, it's called hybrid vigor.   However, a former boss with a masters degree in genetics told me, for reasons no one really understands, and there's term in genetics for this which I can never remember, occasionally two really dumb people can produce a genius.  It's still a crap shoot.  

Having said that, make no mistake, gene editing is on the horizon, some of it will be beneficial, especially with dealing with autoimmune diseases, and some of it will not, since intelligence and morality have little in common. 

Calvin Coolidge was the greatest President of the 20th century, and yet few know much about him, which is unfortunate, and I really recommend reading Amity Schlae's book Coolidge.  He once stated:

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent".

And you can't really breed for that because culture is king, and each generation marinates in it's own culture often abandoning their parents culture.  It’s still a crap shoot.

Friday, September 27, 2024

Amy Wax Is the Rock in the Current!

Heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart

By Rich Kozlovich / Tags:  

For years I've stated the two groups mostly considered to be leaders are Ph.D.'s and military officers.  But the fact is both got to the top by being part of the go along to get along crowd, and to the vast majority of them rowing against the tide, or being a rock in the current is totally alien to their thinking, or their character.  But there are exceptions, and they pay a price.  I've added her to the John Boyd Legion of Honor.

In 2019 I posted a link to this article, In Defense of Penn Law Professor Amy Wax, and to my surprise I got thousands of hits on this piece, saying:

The hard left doesn’t want to nominate another white male for president in 2020, or in the words of Politico, “a candidate that looks like Bernie or Joe.” In fact, according to most liberals, police departments would be better off with more nonwhites and fewer whites, as would fire departmentsschool districtssmall businessesHollywood,Major League BaseballU.S. Congress, and the Philadelphia Orchestra, to name a few places.

Whether this is ultimately true is debatable. What’s not is the fact that it’s perfectly okay to call for more diversity in America -- to publicly state things would be better off with more nonwhites and less whites.    

Then back in 2022 this article appeared, Edunomics, which I thought was a great article with a really dumb title, discussing how academia has been totally corrupted with leftist dogma totally destroying free speech.  Amy Wax is at the heart of that discussion saying:

The law school currently has her under review with the hope, it would appear, of taking away her tenure and then her job. Why is this occurring? Dr. Wax is doing what lawyers are taught to do: ask simple but hard questions, relying on facts that result in hard truths and more difficult questions. Dr. Wax has had the audacity to ask if bourgeois culture, which includes hard work, studiousness, delayed gratification, work, marriage, and having children in, rather than out of wedlock might be a good thing. 

She has questioned if it is problematic that most black students in the Penn law school are at the bottom of their classes. She has had the nerve to suggest that some cultures might be superior to others. For asking these impertinent questions, the dean of the law school has her under review.  Apparently, the principle of freedom of expression at Penn is good for me but not for thee. Wax has apparently crossed a “line,” transgressed “appropriate expression,” is a “racist” and a “white supremacist,” and she has yet to receive a “comprehensive and complete statement of all the charges lodged against her.” One can only describe the situation as Kafkaesque. 

I published that piece and tagged these articles thinking her plight wouldn't be much of an issue down the road.  That was a serious error in judgement, and since I had so many hits on the first piece, I should have known better! 

Here we are again, The Amy Wax Inflection Point for 'Elite' Higher Education, saying:

Higher education has been a cesspool of anti-Americanism, censorious leftism and cultural radicalism for longer than I have been alive. The moral rot is, and always has been, particularly acute at Ivy League or otherwise putatively "elite" institutions. The pro-Hamas "protests" that have rocked university campuses since Oct. 7 are indicative.....

......there was the triumvirate of "elite" university presidents who testified before Congress last December that the permissibility of campus calls for the genocide of the Jewish people "depends on the context."......But perhaps the single biggest disgrace to rock academia in recent years has been the University of Pennsylvania's years long crusade against its own tenured law professor, Amy Wax.

It appears it's perfectly acceptable to promote the genocide of Jews in Academia, but to declare mass immigration and multiculturalism is destructive to America and state factually that "black students rarely finish in the top half of graduating law school classes" is totally unacceptable.  Facts and history are anathema to leftists.   

When you consider that in one New York university it's been claimed about 90% of the student freshmen needed remedial reading classes, it's clear questions need to be raised.   How does someone graduate from high school and be incapable of reading?  That alone justifies questioning a lot about what's going on in education in America, including academia, and make no mistake, culture is king, and if that's true, and it was when Herodotus said it 2500 years ago, and it's still true today, then the culture that molded these kid's performance, activity, and attitude, must also be brought into question.

There's one thing abundantly clear, America's schools are failing to teach students fundamental skills.  They can't read, they can't write, they can't work basic math.  Then it must also be clear no matter how much money we're told to keep throwing at the teachers - teachers are failing to do their jobs.  Ergo-----they're overpaid, underworked and need to be fired, starting at the administration level!   If kids never learn to read why in the world would we think they're learning how to think? The socialist goal of making sure the apple falls as far away from the tree as possible is now a leftist success story - students are now too stupid to resist any stupidity the leftists promote. 

In Chicago teachers are being told to pass migrant children irrespective of their performance.  That's an outrageous abuse of these children.  If they can't do the basics how are they be expected to succeed in society?  Turn to crime?  That's not a long term success story.  

Here's what's acceptable to this corrupt cabal of so-called educators these days:

  • Democrats are intentionally dumbing down the kids - For decades, most of the media and other Democrats have lied to the public, insisting that they, and not Republicans, care about our children… but their actions and policies show that this propaganda is clearly not true. They only care about money and power, a fact clearly seen when you look at the results in the public education sector. According to a report from US News, the Los Angeles school district spends over $18,000 per student; yet after thirteen years of schooling, only 46% of high school students could read at grade level, and a measly 18% were at grade level in math......
  • Arizona State University prof claims current abortion policies could lead to forced breeding camps and cannibalism - Arizona State University professor of English Jennifer Irish recently used a school workshop called “A Speculative Future for Reproductive Rights” to express her concern that the country’s current abortion policies could somehow lead to “forced breeding camps” and “cannibalism,” according to a story in The College Fix.  Our abortion policies will lead to cannibalism?! WTH?! Ms. Irish, is it not enough to kill your kids, do you want to eat them, too? English professor Irish, (not to be confused with Irish professor English) stated: “So much of our reality points toward those futures.” Say again. Like what, precisely?......
  •  Major Medical School Claims Timeliness, Individualism, And Professionalism Are Part Of White Supremacy  Radical leftism is a disease that, if left unchecked, will destroy our medical system.   Imagine a medical school that believes being on time, acting professionally, and displaying individualism is a display of white supremacy. Duke Medical School claims it is "White supremacy culture" to expect people of color to be on time in a strategic plan for creating an "Anti-Racist Workforce.".....
  • The Double Standard on Campus Speech -  After weeks in which college students at campuses from Columbia to Harvard to UCLA celebrated murders and rapes, waved the flags of Islamic terrorist organizations and assaulted Jewish people, one student has finally been held accountable........While no amount of calls for the destruction of America or assaults on Jewish students led to any outrage in the media or actual consequences.....Knocking a Jewish female UCLA student unconscious didn’t do it. Barring Jewish students from being able to go to their classes didn’t do it. Assaulting staff members and faculty at universities didn’t do it. But call a fat black female activist Lizzo” and it’s an instant nationwide outrage.......

But for Amy Wax who calls into "question the academic ability of Black students" question the culture they represent, and invite Jared Taylor to speak in her classroom, who is being classified as a "white supremacist" saying, .... the country would be better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration, is unacceptable, and she must be punished.  

Whether you agree with his views or not, that's not the issue.  If academia can spew out all kinds of vile speech about Jews, whites, Christians, and traditional values in America, why should this be prohibited?  Why should she be punished and none of these other academics vile views be found acceptable?  Well, it's simple.  Statistics are racist, and so for "two and a half years, a period spanning successive Penn Law deanships, Wax has been subject to a probe into her alleged wrongthink and misdeeds.", which as "made Penn a pariah among academic freedom advocates."

The judgment finally came this week: Penn Law suspended Wax for a year, reduced her pay for that year by 50%, permanently stripped her of her endowed chair and summer pay, and publicly reprimanded her. Interestingly.......Penn Law had previously offered Wax a settlement that would have lessened her penalty on the condition that she not "disparage the University," not sue Penn and not publicly disclose the exculpatory evidence she had presented during the years long probe. Translation: Shut your mouth and this problem will go away quickly.

Two things are clear, Amy Wax is one tough cookie, and I've no doubt there will be an lawsuit in the near future, and I've no doubt she will win, and there will be another article about this here in P&D.  And secondly, universities are vile breeding grounds for breeding evil: "If you send your child to college, you are playing Russian Roulette with his or her values."

Update 11:15 AM:  This College Just Got an Anonymous $100 Million for Defending Free Speech. - A whopping $100 million donation from an anonymous benefactor found its way into the coffers of the University of Chicago this week, intended to help the university bolster free speech on campus following a case in which a student claims an academic tried to get him expelled over controversial remarks..........The gift comes after a high-profile case involving student Daniel Schmidt, who stated last year that a professor at the University of Chicago was trying to get him expelled for highlighting an anti-white class called “the problem of whiteness.” The professor claimed the student, who has tens of thousands of social media followers, was bullying her. Earlier this week, the president of the university said Schmidt was free to talk about controversial topics like race and IQ, as Schmidt has previously claimed low IQs are the reason  "black people are murdering and mugging my classmates."

Update 9/29/24:   Penn offered Amy Wax $50K to be quiet - ANALYSIS: After years of investigating Wax and impugning her character, the university wanted her to be quiet. The University of Pennsylvania offered Professor Amy Wax $50,000 and reduced penalties if she would promise not to publicly criticize it ahead of tougher sanctions. Wax is a conservative law professor who has faced years of investigations and criticism from university leaders and activists because of her comments on immigration, race, and IQ. The university announced earlier this week Wax will be suspended next year and only receive half of her salary during that time.............“This case is about free expression,” Wax told the Free Beacon. “Penn wanted absolute silence. The big question is: Why do they want to hide what they’re doing?”.............

Penn Professor Amy Wax Punished for ‘Inconvenient Facts’-  The beginning of the end of law professor Amy Wax’s career came on August 9, 2017. That’s when Wax and another law professor, Larry Alexander, published an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer declaring that “all cultures are not equal.”.........The thesis of the 827-word piece was that some people—“working-class whites” with “antisocial habits”; “inner-city blacks” with their “anti-‘acting white’ rap culture”; and Hispanic immigrants who resist assimilation—are at a profound disadvantage in the game of life. This, they argued, is why we should all embrace a 1950s-style “bourgeois culture” that smooths over differences, paving the way for greater national cohesiveness.......

Amy Wax Is Academic Freedom’s Canary in the Coal Mine - Yesterday, (9/24/24) the University of Pennsylvania completed its years-long end run around academic freedom to punish law professor Amy Wax...........Penn is a private school that nonetheless makes First Amendment-like promises to respect its students’ and faculty members’ right to free expression. Whether on a contractual or moral basis, Penn should have kept those promises. Instead, it abandoned principle for the sake of expediency.  While it remains to be seen whether Wax will keep her promise to sue Penn if she’s punished, I told The New York Times yesterday that the university’s decision “should send a chill down the spine of every faculty member, not just at Penn but at every private institution around the country.”......

Thursday, March 14, 2024

The Smartest Person in the World Wiffs

Marilyn vos Savant makes a major gaff
 

Marilyn vos Savant is reportedly (according to the Guinness Book of Records) the person who has the highest IQ of anyone in the world — maybe ever!… Although I’ve been accepted into Mensa, Marilyn would be considered to be a Super-Mensa person.

I’ve read Marilyn’s weekly column (Ask Marilyn) for several years, and she uniformly has good answers — which is why I read it. However, even the smartest person in the world can make mistakes. I recently saw this interesting question she was asked:

“I know a young woman who failed all her classes during her first (and only) semester of college. How could the school have admitted her?”

This is Marilyn’s surprisingly poor answer (where I bolded three key parts):

Plenty of students bomb as freshmen, with no one having a clue beforehand. Reasons vary wildly (from stress to finances and being just plain sick of schooling), but they have little to do with ability or intelligence.

Spending much of one’s youth sitting in classrooms, doing homework, and taking tests is unnatural and taxing. And then in college, students must study subjects in which they have no interest and will never put to use...

Marilyn: here are some “beforehand clues” that are in large flashing neon signs —

1 - In K-12 there is rampant grade inflation — so freshmen assume that all they have to do is show up for a good grade. Not so in a quality school, or the world.

2 - In K-12 they are indoctrinated with Woke ideology — so freshmen go into college with an entitlement mentality. But in a good school that won’t cut it.

3 - In K-12, Critical Thinking is not taught — so freshmen who have to do things like write papers are unable to produce more than superficial work. That won’t be sufficient at a good school — or the real world.

Marilyn, you also surprisingly stated that students are FORCED to “study subjects in which they have no interest, and will never put to use.” OMG!

1 - Typically, in college it is up to the Student to choose their major — i.e., something they are interested in. That would mean that the majority of resulting subjects would be consistent with (or necessary for) the student’s selected major.

2 - My degree was in physics, and as a freshman at Boston College I was assigned an advanced English class. I thought it would be boring and not relevant, but I applied myself anyway! It turned out to be one of the most useful and interesting classes I EVER took! I’ve put that class to use thousands of times — like write now!

3 - Students also get to choose electives. Again, how is that consistent with your statement that they are forced to “study subjects in which they have no interest”?

My takeaway is that the above “Ask Marilyn” woefully inadequate answer was likely written by a staffer while Marilyn was away on vacation.

A more representative observation from Marilyn is: Don't be afraid to challenge conventional wisdom; sometimes the greatest breakthroughs come from questioning the norms.


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Leave a comment

Share Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).

Sunday, March 10, 2024

Are All Races Equally Intelligent - or - When is Knowledge, Knowledge

By John J. Ray (M.A., Ph.D.) This Appeared Here in 1972

There has recently been an extensive controversy in the psychology literature on the possible genetic base of racial differences in intelligence. This has been so acrimonious as to inspire the thought that the controversy itself forms an interesting case-study in the sociology of knowledge. I refer to the articles by Jensen (1968 and 1969) and Garrett (1969). 

One outcome of these controversies is the apparently justified accusation by Jensen (1969b) that an important body of his colleagues (the members of the council of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) indulged in "propaganda" and disregard for the facts of the issue. Garrett (1969) makes similar observations. As Van den Haag (1969) points out, the cause of egalitarianism seems to have induced some remarkable failures of reasoning even among normally eminent social scientists. How may these phenomena be explained?

Study of Intelligence as the Hereditary Given

Before one can understand what is really going on in this controversy, it is necessary briefly to recapitulate some basic findings.

There is no doubt that American Negroes obtain lower average scores on standard intelligence tests than do American whites (Tyler, 1965, p. 306; Garrett; 1969). In fact the differences found are often so large and so regular in their incidence that this might be held to be one of the most impressive uniformities in the whole of psychological measurement.

To use Hebb's (1949) terminology there are two types of intelligence -- A and B. Intelligence A is the inborn, hereditary "given" whereas intelligence B is intelligence as measured, i.e. intelligence A plus some variable overlay of learned problem-solving strategies. It is mean differences across races in intelligence A that is of concern here.

Substitution of Ideology for Science

The way to assess differences in intelligence A is to control or equalize the influences and opportunities affecting the B Component. When this is done, differences remaining are attributable to intelligence A variations. Tanser (1939), Bruce (1940), and McQueen and Browning (1960) have carried out such studies where environmental influences on white and Negro groups have been controlled. All reported significant superiority of the white groups. 

In spite of this, most psychologists (Tyler, 1965, 9, 300) continue to claim that there are no innate differences in intelligence between whites and Negroes. The usual reason advanced for adherence to this credo is that the tests used must in some way be unfair to non-members of the dominant white culture (even though the Negroes and whites of Tanser's study had attended the same schools since 1890!). If this claim is true, how does one explain the consistent finding (Pintner, 1931) that Chinese and Japanese school-children get average test scores equal to or above those of American whites? One is asked to believe that the tests are unfair to people who have sat in the same classrooms as whites but not unfair to Chinese and Japanese who have a totally different cultural background.

Why is it that psychologists, who are most in a position to observe racial differences in intelligence, resolutely refuse to believe the evidence before their eyes? The answer to this is, I believe, an instructive, if sad, incident in the sociology of knowledge. Often drawn to their profession by humane or humanitarian considerations, psychologists are so committed to the belief that whites and Negroes morally should be treated equally that they seem to conclude, albeit unconsciously, that the best way of securing this morally desirable end is to convince people that whites and Negroes in fact are ontologically equal. If the facts fell into line with this account, all would be well, but as it is, the present author would question whether any moral goal is ultimately well served by denying reality as it is. If there are native differences in intelligence, our strategy in pursuing humanitarian goals must presumably become more adaptive by a recognition of it.

This question of the ideology subscribed to by the scientist is also relevant to the question of what we accept as a criterion for evidence. There have been many attempts to construct "culture fair" tests but their application has not been successful in removing Negro-white differences. We must then at some point ask ourselves: "When do we stop?" When do we consider the case proved? When do we start to conclude that there might not after all be some real difference there that is not attributable to a measurement artifact? Given the impressive uniformity of the findings to date, it seems abundantly clear that the existence of a real difference between races would long ago have been considered to have been proven out of hand were it not for an ideological commitment to the opposite viewpoint.

When is Moral Moral?

Just how much ideology can cause even an outstanding psychologist to drift into self-deception is exemplified in the position taken by McElwain (1970). McElwain is head of the Department of Psychology at Australia's largest university (Queensland) and author of the definitive "Queensland Test" of Aboriginal intelligence. This test was normed and validated on Aboriginal groups themselves. It includes only those sub-tests which could be shown to discriminate within the Aboriginal population. 

Although he does not appear to have committed himself in print, he has repeated to the present author in writing, an assertion often made to his students -- that when the Queensland test is given also to whites, a negative relationship between the discriminating power of a subtest within the Aboriginal population and the size of the gap between white and Aboriginal mean scores appears, i.e., as the test gets better so Aborigines rose closer to whites in average test scores. From this McElwain appears to suggest that if we got a really discriminating test, the difference between whites and Aborigines would disappear altogether.

Here, then, McElwain appears to commit the same fallacy in reverse that is so frequently alleged against tests normed and validated for whites! A test is designed specifically for an Aboriginal culture and yet whites still get higher scores on it! The amazing thing is that whites do not get lower scores on it. Of course the discriminating power and the size of the cross-racial gap are related. 

As the test is more and more characteristically Aboriginal in specific background, so whites are more and more disadvantaged. A true comparison study of the question set by this paper using the Queensland's test would require that a group of whites be found who shared an environmental background similar to the Aborigine culture. In that case only, might mean scores on McElwain's test be reasonably compared across the two racial groups.

If racial differences exist how do we explain them? A possible explanation is the ecological one: different racial groups develop different areas of excellence according to the specific demands of their characteristic environment. In the harsh European climate, forethought (symbolic thought) has historically been essential to survival -- particularly through the long winters. 

In Africa these same mental qualities have not had the same relative importance. Because of the more beneficient climate the importance of certain physical and psychomotor abilities has risen in comparison. In time the process of natural selection has ensured that these differentia became racially fixed. With the different characteristic environments of the white and Negro races, it would in fact be highly surprising to find similar levels in all abilities. What one would expect and what one does, I believe, find is that whites would be higher on cognitive abilities and Negroes higher on certain physical abilities.

Using the concept of a morality hierarchy proposed by Hampden-Turner and Whitten (1971) it might be said in fact that the attempt to deny the empirical findings of racial differences in intelligence in order to secure the moral goal of having all races treated equally represents a very low level of moral maturity. The person at the highest stage of moral development would presumably not need to have his moral resolve to treat people equally bolstered by assertions that people are equal anyhow. He would be anxious to do justice to the empirical findings in the awareness that they are essentially irrelevant to the moral decision he has made.

For the future then, humanitarian aims might perhaps best be served by abandoning the unlikely enterprise of proving all men equal. Instead, perhaps, we might concentrate on the question of what the difference between groups are -- and how differences might be used in the betterment of all.

Sunday, March 3, 2024

Have I Ever Told You About Preconceptual Science?

By Rich Kozlovich
 
My now passed friend Dr. Jay Lehr was at Princeton when Einstein was there, and he told me when Einstein first came to Princeton he delivered a series of lectures, and I think it was seven, but five for sure.  He said at the first couple of those lectures you couldn't buy or steal a seat in that room it was so packed, but by the last lecture there were plenty of seats.  
 
I was a bit surprised and asked why.  He said a lot of these people, many of whom were among the smartest people in the world, didn't have a clue what he was talking about, and clearly they didn't dare suggest is was Einstein who didn't know what he was talking about.  Can you imagine what that must have done to their egos?
 
Over the course of my almost 78 years respect for science has gone from the top of Mt. Everest to the toilet, and for good reason.   During and right after WWII science exposed the world to the atom bomb, sputnik, men to the moon, and amazing medical advances at disease prevention.  And as a result some scientist could look up from his microscope, or turn from his blackboard with all sorts of gibberish only they and their peers understood, and mumble out incomprehensible babble almost no one would understand, but everyone would be sure to believe.   And it might be true, and it might not.
 
As my friend Mike Shaw noted:   
 
Science, once indistinguishable from a search for truth—has become fatally corrupted by academia in a rapacious search for dollars.
 
With all the scientific jargon, and arrogant ivory tower isolation, we just didn't know any better, but time and truth are on the same side, and before now we just didn't know scientific integrity has always been a serious issue.
 
Evolution was at the heart of much of it, and was the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity, until global warming, and this fraudulent coronavirus pandemic, and worse yet, the shots they forced on much of humanity they fraudulently called "vaccines".  The negative health consequences as a result of these vaccination mandates of are world wide, and will continue for decades.
 
Let's try and get this once and for all. Government grant money has made
 

Nothing has changed, and in point of fact it's getting worse, and will get far worse in the coming years because now any nitwit, or group of nitwits with computers and a "twitter" account can force science to reject anything they don't like. Nitwits are now part of the peer review process.  The article about the study in question went on to say:

On January 4th, the paper "Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average," was accepted to the journal. That same day, the abstract was published with the notice that the "final, formatted version of the article will be published soon".

Apparently the average IQ for college undergraduates has dropped, and a lot from "around 120 to 102, just slightly above the average of 100."  Let's  not delude ourselves, that's huge, and apparently it's true.  The authors went on to point out the ranks attending college is no longer from the higher IQ members of society, and as a result, "academic standards and curricula might have to be adjusted."  After what we've seen at Harvard, does anyone doubt that?

Well, this set up a fire storm of protest because they really didn't like the author's "tone".  It was demeaning, and lacked sensitivity, and criticized the peer reviewers for not finding fault with their paper, including the Frontiers in Psychology handling editor.  

The editor  of that journal, Eddy Davelaar, overrode all that and attempted to refute the evidence presented, and he did so....... with his opinions.......and has refused to respond to challenges over his actions and his opinions.  

But none of that changes the fact these young academics are dumber than ever, and are no longer required to perform mentally challenging tasks.  Academia is more about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion than it is with honest education, that teaches critical thinking, versus Critical Race Theory.

Diversity without accomplishment is philosophy without form and incompetence without consequence.  Unfortunately, as with all these schemes, humanity pays the penalty, and in the future the consequences are going to be dramatic.  Negatively dramatic.  

One more thing, this whole Preconceptual claptrap mentality doesn't just apply to science.  It works for economics also. 

Thursday, June 8, 2023

Mind the Gap

Steve Sailer Taki's Magazine, May 31, 2023

Is the white-black IQ gap shrinking in the United States?  Although many assume that the existence of sizable disparities in average IQ among the races simply must be “pseudoscience,” that different ethnicities average different levels of mental ability is one of the most overwhelmingly well-established findings of the social sciences.  Exactly why ancestral groups have varying IQs remains controversial, but the fact that they do is not disputed among the well-informed. A general rule of thumb among researchers has long been that whites and blacks differ in average IQ by about one standard deviation.  “Racial intelligence differences are real, large, crucial for understanding American society, and not going away anytime soon.”.............It’s something we have to live with........... the manifold effects of the intelligence gap don’t justify the current paranoid conspiracy theorizing about white racism.

Much of the madness of the 2020s, such as the post–George Floyd murder and car crash sprees and California’s reparations plans, is likely attributable to blacks figuring out that they weren’t going to catch up but that they could guilt-trip whites into paying reparations because whites have been disarmed of mentioning the IQ and crime gaps. A new culture in which the basic truths of the social sciences are widely discussed would be a better one than what we have been saddled with in the present decade.............To Read More..

Monday, January 23, 2023

The War on Competence

 January 22, 2023 By Clarice Feldman

Decades ago, the Left played the class-war game. These days it’s a war on competence and achievement, hiding beyond claims of racial and sexual equity.

In Virginia, we are to believe that on their own, high school administrators in seventeen schools decided not to inform those of their students who had scored high enough on their scholastic aptitude tests to be named National Merit semi-finalists. Of course, it was not coincidental. Two factors are involved: The spurious claim that schools can achieve the impossible -- equal outcomes for all -- a claim which must not be challenged by contrary facts; and prejudice against high-achieving students -- most likely, given historical records, majority Asian and white. Hugh Hewitt thinks this was a clear violation of the students' civil rights for which Faitfax County may end up paying heavy legal damages. 

A Massachusetts congresswoman,  Ayanna Pressley (who represents, inter alia, most of Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts), plainly revealed what is the basis for the war on intellectual achievement:

“IQ is a measure of whiteness.”

It isn’t, of course. It’s a combination of genetics (dare we say this?), home environment, including familial respect for achievement, personal interests and motivation, and to a certain extent, the caliber of the education received.  This is not just a K-12 excrescence. For some years now it has metastasized to higher education.  ...........To Read More...


Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Charles Murray’s Wake Up Call on Race Problems

April 16, 2022 By John Dale Dunn 

Charles Murray just can’t help himself; he’s been a social scientist and prolific author for almost 40 years, writing books on the American experience and societal issues. Now he is back in the mix with a book, Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America (Encounter Books 2021), that follows up on the book he wrote with Richard Herrnstein, The Bell Curve (1994).  That magnificent work blew the top off of racial debates in America with its in-depth analysis of racial cognitive ability (IQ) differences and socio-economic mobility of Americans and factors that are associated with success in life.

IQ

The 79-year-old scholar and warrior at the American Enterprise Institute is back at it, trying to substitute facts and analysis for the sloppy thinking and emotions that pervade academia and politics in America.  While the chattering class and media focus on inequities and claims of social injustice, Dr. Murray (Ph.D. MIT) points out that although there is certainly racism in every society and in America, the reality is that the inequities of socioeconomic status are more the result of cognitive ability and criminal activity.

The majority of the relatively short but powerful and scholarly book, Facing Reality, is focused on data and evidence. Murray repeatedly reminds us that all social science research must always be careful to consider contributing factors.

Murray disputes the fashionable assumption that racial discrimination creates social inequities.  The reality, says Murray, is that racial inequalities in America between European- and African-heritage people in health, wealth, position, status, and income can be traced to a significant disparity in African Americans’ cognitive ability and criminal behavior.  The inequalities are also present to a lesser degree for Latin-heritage people.

The reverse is true for Asians, who have higher IQs and socioeconomic success than Europeans.  Murray holds to the conviction that American society is not pervasively and irredeemably riddled with racism and that meritocratic America is egalitarian and emphasizes individual opportunity, rewards, and accountability.  As Murray points out, if the pipeline to particularly high achievement is considered, the number of high IQ persons in that pipeline is colorblind. 

Murray’s view of the disparate higher rate of criminality in the African and Latin communities is a separate analysis that has to do with how members of a group fit into the society as good citizens.  If your group has a violent crime rate 2 or 3 times or more than the rate of the Europeans and Asians, that produces less assimilation and less success. 

Murray aims to revive what he calls the “American creed,” a set of ideal commitments to foundational freedoms, human dignity, individualism, equality under the law, and the use of neutral, colorblind measures of individual talent and competence to assign economic and social roles. Central to this code, still supported by Americans, is a meritocratic and impartial standard for all.  Murray condemns the distortion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by the government, judiciary, and political class to create reverse discrimination, quotas, and set-aside racial preferences, impacting employment and academic choices. 

Critical Race Theory and its associated concepts have created an environment that repudiates the principles of the founding and created counterproductive and polarizing abandonment of the American principle of a meritocracy and treatment of citizens as individuals, not members of a race, ethnic group, or tribe.

In the cognitive function section of the book, Murray makes the case that widely used and properly developed tests in academia, business settings, and the military do measure cognitive ability and IQ (also called g) and there is no evidence that the tests fail to measure the potential for academic success.  

Murray is assiduous in his use of statistics and research methods.  His population studies information show traits usually fall quantitatively in a bell-shaped pattern with the big bulk of the population in the middle and tails on the low and high sides.  That shape amplifies differences on the tails. For example, Murray estimates that of the 23 million Americans who are in their late twenties, there are currently about 228,000 with I.Q.s in excess of 135. That pool contains only about 2,800 Africans and 9,500 Latins, compared to 50,000 Asians and 160,000 Europeans.  Africans are about 14% of the population but represent only slightly more than 1% of the 135 IQ plus pool -- or about 1 in every 100 people headed for high-level jobs or professions.  So the pipeline to high achievement is dominated by Asians and Europeans (whites).  Such realities create inequities that have nothing to do with racism.

Murray’s opponents continue to cling to the theory that racism creates inequities, and demand a war on structural racism and systematic racism. But Murray is skeptical about the chances to change the fundamental reason for the inequities: cognitive differences.  There is no known way to raise IQs and reduce inequalities in cognition, but Murray points out that genetic determination of IQ is somewhere between 40 and 80%.

 Crime rates ...........To Read More....

My Take - First, it's clear IQ plays a role in how people respond to reality. But, it's my view IQ is highly overrated. Jane Mansfield had an IQ over 160, actually higher than world famous physicist Stephen Hawking.

For years I've kept hearing how brilliant this man was so I started paying attention to his "pronouncements" from on high.  He might be brilliant in some way in his particular brand of science, which I'm more than happy to admit I don't understand, but it seems to me he's like a lot of smart people who need to stay in his little world and leave pronouncements on history, logic, facts, geopolitics, culture and reality to people who actually know about those things.  Personally, outside his area of expertise - I didn't think he was all that bright.

Here's the reality about IQ.  It doesn't guarantee a successful life, it just makes it easier, if applied.  Values, and the commitment to those values are what create a successful life and a successful culture.  One of my favorite quotes is by the most underrated President in American history, Calvin Coolidge:

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On!' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” 
 
One last thing, my opening comments are not meant to besmirch Jane Mansfield.  She died early in a car crash and her career was declining, but she must have understood what she had to offer Hollywood wasn't going to last.  I once read where she was interviewed and said no matter what happened to her, her children would be taken care of financially.  She may not have been a physicist, but she understood reality seeing farther down the road and preparing for it.  That was a value judgement.  Mariska Hargitay is her daughter.
 
No culture can be fixed, it has to fix itself.  Please view my

Monday, October 11, 2021

The Power is on the Side of the Killers, Not Their Victims

October 10, 2021@ Sultan Knish Blog

At 6:11 PM, Ernest Lee Johnson, a monster who murdered three people, two of them poor single mothers, with a claw hammer was pronounced dead.

Despite the pro-crime lawfare that went all the way to the Supreme Court insisting that lethal injection would cause painful violent seizures, he died quietly.

That was more so than could be said for his victims.

On a cold day in a Missouri winter, Mary Bratcher never came home to the trailer park where the single mother lived with her three children. She was working that night as a manager at a Casey’s General Store in Columbia helping out Mable Scruggs, another single mother, making ends meet by picking up a night shift. Neither of the two women would make it home again.

An hour before midnight, Ernest Lee Johnson came in after a binge in which he bought three rocks of crack cocaine, traded one of them for a gun, put on a mask and came to rob Casey’s.

The plan had been to lock the employees in the back and have one of them open the safe. But then Johnson beat all three of the Casey's employees to death.

He stabbed Mary Bratcher repeatedly through her hand with a screwdriver, likely defensive wounds as she fought the monster for her life. Then he smashed her over the head with a claw hammer again and again. Johnson appeared to be aiming for her face, striking her mouth and nose, to disfigure her while killing her. He beat Mabel to death in the same vicious way.

That was 1994. Like every monster, Johnson never had any shortage of defenders.

He was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995, but the Missouri Supreme Court intervened claiming that the jury should have heard testimony that the crackhead was actually suffering from "cocaine intoxication delirium". The case went to a jury yet again which refrained from excusing the crackhead on the grounds that he had been high while murdering three people.

And then the liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court gave murderers on death row a gift with a decision falsely contending that executing murderers with intellectual limitations was cruel and unusual punishment. Any killer who could claim an IQ under 100 was home free.

Instantly every killer, no matter how cunning and clever, became retroactively retarded.

Johnson had plotted to rob the Casey's safe, he had carried out the crime, and then tried to conceal the evidence. He was evil and high, but not stupid. But the Missouri Supreme Court threw out the decision again and a third jury found the crackhead guilty all over again. But by then over a decade had passed since the original murders while the families waited for justice.

Two decades later, Johnson was finally scheduled to die when the United States Supreme Court intervened, complaining that the monster who beat two women to death with a claw hammer might suffer “painful seizures” when he’s executed by lethal injection because he has a tumor.

Since then he found exciting new legal stratagems to delay justice, including requesting death by laughing gas and firing squad. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan wanted to hear his plea for a firing squad.

“In addition to being near instant, death by shooting may also be comparatively painless. And historically, the firing squad has yielded significantly fewer botched executions,” Sotomayor ranted in her dissent. 

Did the court’s wise Latina develop a sudden fondness for firing squads? No more than the rest of the delaying tactics that kept the bludgeoner alive this long.

Leftist lawyers and judges wage lawfare against the law and the victims to protect killers.

But now that Johnson is out of tricks, the Democrats have come to his defense.

Rep. Cori Bush, a former organzier for the racist hate group, Black Lives Matter, co-signed a petition demanding a commutation of Johnson's sentence because it's just like "slavery and lynching". It’s understandable that Bush would take that position considering that Mary and Mabel were white women and their worthless lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter.

But Johnson’s first victim was the store’s third worker: Fred Jones.

Jones, an African-American man, had been the only caregiver for his mother and a disabled brother. When Johnson murdered him, he also took away the only helper left in their lives.

Johnson started out by shooting Fred Jones. But when the bullet didn't kill him, the crackhead beat the store employee to death with a hammer instead.

Then he began the rest of his killing spree.

Fred Jones had been in the cooler, perhaps because as the only male in the store he was seen as more of a threat. And he may have resisted or tried to fight Johnson, leading the crackhead to decide to kill him.

And everyone else.

The killer had shot Jones in the head. Then he beat him with the claw on the hammer fracturing his skull.

But his black life, like the lives of the over 5,800 black people who were killed in 2020, don’t matter to Rep. Bush and to Black Lives Matter. Only the lives of crackhead killers do.

Pro-crime lawfare had already put the families of Johnson’s victims through hell. When the Supreme Court decided to illegitimately intervene in his previous execution, the family members had already been there and waiting. Instead justice was denied to them for another six years.

Rep. Cori Bush claims that executing the killer of a black man is racist, the NAACP is rallying on behalf of the killer, not the victim, and Pope Francis has appealed to the “sacredness of human life.” Except the lives of Mary Bratcher, Mable Scruggs, and Fred Jones which are not sacred.

“This would be a crime against humanity," Rep. Bush falsely claimed.

The crime against humanity was that Mary Bratcher never came home to her three children, that Mable Scruggs also never came home to her children, and Fred Jones never returned to his mother. But that is not the only crime here. The feverish efforts to prolong the pain of their family members in order to keep the monster who killed them alive is a crime against humanity.

And a crime against justice.

Every dirty trick, every fashionable legal trend, from mental disability to the supposed risk of side effects from death penalty drugs, had been enlisted in the crackhead killer’s defense.

"These death sentences are not about justice,” Bush and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver whined in their pro-killer petition. "They are about who has institutional power and who doesn’t."

They’re right.

Which House members have spoken out on behalf of Mary Bratcher, Mable Scruggs, and Fred Jones? Do Bush and Cleaver even know their names? Does Pope Francis? I doubt it.

The institutional power that allowed the killer to escape justice for 27 years is on his side.

This is not about justice, it’s about who has institutional power. And it’s the killers who have all the power and their victims who have none. After Johnson got through beating three people, poor people, to death with hammers, lawyers and judges took up what he had left undone.

Even Rep. Cori Bush and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver took a turn swinging the claw hammer.

Hollywood, the media, and politicians keep pushing the big lie that criminals are helpless victims of the system. And yet they provide the best evidence of the vast institutional power that even the lowest and vilest killer can summon against justice and the families of his victims.
 
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: , ,
Author Image

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Monday, September 6, 2021

More From Murray's "Facing Reality"

August 23, 2021 @ Manhattan Contrarian

I’ve now finished Charles Murray’s “Facing Reality.” It’s not a long book — 125 pages pre-footnotes. There are extensive references to online data archives and scholarly articles that you can review if you are so inclined; but as far as text goes, that’s it.

The core of the book is a summary of readily-available statistical data as to differences between and among racial groups in the U.S. The two areas of statistics on which Murray focuses are those relating to “cognitive ability” and “violent crime.” The racial categories that he uses are the ones generally used by government statisticians, including the Census, although he has adopted somewhat different nomenclature — European, African, Latin and Asian.

The group differences found in the statistics are not small. The largest differences are between Africans on the one hand and Europeans and Asians on the other. Many readers may be familiar with some of these statistics in a general way, but not with many of the details; so let me give a few examples.

With regard to “cognitive ability,” Murray notes that results of tests designed to asses this metric — such as IQ tests or SATs — are characterized by what are called “normal” probability distributions, familiar to most as the iconic bell curves. Normal distributions can be described by two key measurements: the mean (half of people score above, and half below); and the “standard deviation.,” which is a measure of how many people score how much above or below the mean. As to standard deviations, roughly two-thirds of people score within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within two standard deviations, and 99.7% within three standard deviations.

For an IQ test, the mean is set at 100, and the standard deviation at 15. But each racial group has a different mean. There are substantial differences between the means for the different racial groups. A chart on page 40 shows that the mean for Europeans is slightly above the 100, for Africans is about 87, and for Asians is about 110. The same chart shows that there are very substantial overlaps between the distribution curves for the various groups. From page 39:

[This figure] shows how much overlap exists in the distributions. It is not a threatening picture. Yes, differences exist, but it is also true that millions of Africans and Latins have higher cognitive ability than millions of Europeans and Asians.

But the crux of the matter concerns not the overlapping centers of the distributions, but rather the tails, and particularly the high-end tails where are found candidates for elite jobs like corporate CEOs, investment bankers, college professors, and high-end doctors and lawyers. This is the place where attention is regularly focused to see what racial progress is being made. On page 82 Murray looks at the pool of potential candidates for an employer in one of these categories who is seeking to hire an “exceptionally intelligent” young adult (aged 25-29), with “exceptionally intelligent” defined as IQ of 135 or above (that is, more than 2 standard deviations above the mean, but well less than three):

Employers [in 2019] seeking these exceptionally intelligent young adults were choosing from a pool that contained only about 2,800 Africans and 9,500 Latins compared to 50,700 Asians and 160,100 Europeans.

In other words, Africans constituted only about 1.3% of this potential hiring pool, and Latins 4.3%. This is an issue that no amount of “affirmative action” can change. Two hundred major law firms can all announce that they are going to hire simultaneously 13% Africans among their classes of new associates, but there aren’t nearly that many qualified candidates to go around.

Murray’s book contains some substantial information on the history of attempting to move these statistics by government policies. At the time the statistical differences were identified, Africans had been subject to many decades of inferior schooling, and there was great optimism that better-funded schools would quickly reduce and even eliminate the gap. From the 1970s to 90s, the gap actually shrank somewhat, but since then, not much if any at all. The government funding that has gone into trying to move the needle is measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Murray particularly focuses on No Child Left Behind, from the early 2000s.

I won’t go into Murray’s violent crime statistics in any detail, but they are quite stark. Only a few cities publish granular data as to race of perpetrators as it relates to arrests or victim or witness identifications; but the handful that do include the largest cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington. According to a chart on page 51, an African is 11.6 times as likely to get arrested for a violent crime in New York as a European, 9.0 times in Los Angeles, 14.5 times in Chicago, and 19.9 times in Washington. For Latins, the ratios are 4.1 times in New York, 2.4 in Los Angeles, 2.8 in Chicago, and 6.4 in Washington. If you think that those statistics might be driven by police racism, Murray points out that the ratios for victim and witness identifications of perpetrators are even higher than those for arrests.

Murray’s conclusion (from page 7)::

[M]ean differences between groups are a reality and will be with us indefinitely.

As for a prescription going forward, here is Murray from page 122:

Eliminate all forms of government-sponsored preferential treatment by race. It is not within any government’s power to force racial harmony on its citizens, but it is within the government’s power to strip away the legal and administrative incentives and requirements for preferential treatment according to race.

For myself, I’m not quite as ready as Murray to give up on changes in K-12 education as a way of reducing racial differences in test scores. So far, almost all of the government billions have gone to failed unionized government schools to keep doing exactly what they were doing before and get paid more for the effort. Expansion of school competition could well help minority children achieve more of their potential. But there’s no getting around that even this is not a “solution,” but rather a slow and at best partial amelioration.