The Agenda of the Racial Hereditarians

Almost all of the leading hereditarian race researchers have come out saying that they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. The reasoning is clear. If it can be proven that Blacks are genetically stupider than Whites, then clearly, people ought to have the right to discriminate against them, right? Anyway, that’s how their thinking goes.

A lot of these folks have recently been taking this further. Jason Malloy of Gene Expression spent some time trying to put together an argument that lower Black IQ made Blacks inferior employees. The conclusions are ominous. If we can scientifically prove that Blacks are worse employees, then the logical thing to do would be to discriminate against them.

But their arguments are not as good as they seem. Let’s take a look at them. First of all, are South African IQ scores valid? Yes, it appears that they are.

In South Africa it was found that job performance correlated with IQ. A Black with a 70 IQ performed the same as a White with 70 IQ, and a White with 115 IQ performed the same as a Black with 115 IQ. That is, based on this study, IQ scores for Black South Africans appear to be valid.

This study is used to claim that Black-White job performance differences are caused by lower Black IQ.

But this is not what the study proved at all. Black job performance, if caused by low Black IQ, would have to be over 1 Standard Deviations (SD) (maybe 1.3 SD) below White. Instead, Black job performance is .33 SD below Whites. Black lower job performance is not very much lower than Whites anyway, does not correlate well with Black IQ. In other words, Blacks perform far better on the job than would be predicted by their IQ scores.

From the study:

Black-White differences on job performance are rather small and much smaller than would be predicted based on IQ differentials.Main Effects

The results of this study reinforce some beliefs and change others. For Black-White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation (when corrected for criterion reliability), and this is quite similar to Kraiger and Ford (1985).

We also had similar results for one of three types of performance measures used by J. K. Ford et al. (1986). Specifically, we found larger d’s associated with objective measures of job knowledge than with subjective measures of job knowledge.

Furthermore, Black-White wage gap is far worse than predicted based on B-W IQ gap. This is important because the hereditarians are going to say that Blacks make less money because they are worse workers, and they are worse workers because they are stupid. However, as you can see, the wage gap is far worse than would be expected by IQ, not to mention Black job performance, which exceeds Black IQ.

Nice try guys, trying to justify paying Blacks less, but it didn’t work. This study implies that there are other factors behind lower Black wages beyond IQ and job performance. One of them may be discrimination.

The hereditarians, whether they are right or not, do not have Black people’s best interest at stake. In fact, they are trying to provide scientific evidence to justify racism and discrimination. Blacks have every right to be skeptical about these people.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

33 thoughts on “The Agenda of the Racial Hereditarians”

  1. I don’t know if the same thing happens in South Africa, but at my workplace, it’s sometimes a subject at management meetings that black or female employees ratings were lower than white males and to make sure everyone was being evaluated fairly (hint, hint).

    Personally, I support 60s-era anti-discrimination laws as a necessary part of implementing the principle that America is a republic with a set of guaranteed rights for everyone, not an unfettered democracy in which a majority of citizens can vote to make lesser citizens out of others. I’m even OK with affirmative action as originally intended to either redress actual past acts of discrimination or insure equality of opportunity.

    The importance of hereditarian arguments is Diversity. This is the doctrine that every institution needs some representation from every group simply because they’re part of society. (There are some that do, like police forces.) Jared Taylor, an important hereditarian leader, makes the point that without genetic arguments, observable socio-economic disparities become a prima facie argument that oppression is still ongoing. Try to claim that it’s rooted in cultural differences, and the argument just gets set back one step, that the legacy oppression has poisoned black culture. Genetics is the only argument that can’t be blamed on whites to create their liability.

  2. Furthermore, Black-White wage gap is far worse than predicted based on B-W IQ gap. This is important because the hereditarians are going to say that Blacks make less money because they are worse workers, and they are worse workers because they are stupid. However, as you can see, the wage gap is far worse than would be expected by IQ, not to mention Black job performance, which exceeds Black IQ.

    Nice try guys, trying to justify paying Blacks less, but it didn’t work. This study implies that there are other factors behind lower Black wages beyond IQ and job performance. One of them may be discrimination.

    This is where blacks would give a collective “DUH! That’s what we’ve been saying all along!”

    Ok Robert, if you can see this much, then why do you deny the notion of white privilege?

    Also btw, if black performance is higher than IQ would predict, then perhaps it’s time for whites to retire the “blacks are lazy” stereotype.

    1. Oh, brother…

      That assertion came from someone at GNXP? I am not surprised at all. Lets just say I don’t get to post there since 2003…

      1. Cyrus, to be fair to Jason Malloy (only loosely of GNXP) he doesn’t actually say that Black people are lazier but that that group tends to work harder (than White people). There’s some stuff recently on the Inductivist blog and GNXP where he says as much fairly recently. Not sure when exactly it was.

        I’m not sure he makes assertions about whether Black people are generically worse workers or anything like that. That seems plausible to me in kind of a weak sense, but the problematic idea to me is of “worse workers” is too dependant on “what work” for that question to make that much sense to me in a strong sense. You can fudge that to make it fit, but I think you’ll be throwing a way a lot of information to make it fit if you do.

        1. Actually, he wrote that after the James Watson thing blew up where Watson said that Blacks are crappy workers. I think his exact words were, “They say that Blacks and Whites are equal, but anyone who has ever had to put up with Black employees knows this is not true. Malloy then wrote some stuff attempting to justify Watson’s claim empirically. I could not believe he was doing that.

          I mean, my jaw dropped. Then this guy says he’s a liberal. I don’t understand Malloy, and I don’t like him one bit.

          If Blacks are actually performing better at the same jobs as Whites than would be predicted by IQ, that means that Blacks are overperforming on the job relative to their natural abilities. This gives the lie to the notion that Blacks are lazy and crappy workers. Blacks basically appear to overcompensate on the job.

        2. Well either way, when I see the term “GNXP,” I cringe. I’ve got a personal beef with the asshole who runs the site going back years. The funny thing is, the very thing I disagreed with the site’s owner “Razib” over, I.E the absurdness of the Iraq invasion…I turned out to be 100% right. Literally. Down to U.S casualty figures over a protracted occupation. Funny how that is.

          I just love how people on the right disavow you own personal military experience when it does not suit their need. Especially when they have none themselves…

    2. Ok Robert, if you can see this much, then why do you deny the notion of white privilege?

      I know that you’re asking this question to Robert, and I don’t presume to speak for him, but here goes.

      I’m not denying that blacks face employment discrimination, or other forms of discrimination. However, again (and we’ve been over this before), I take issue with your definition of “privilege.” There’s no necessary link between one’s disadvantage and another’s privilege.

      For example, I believe that “heterosexual privilege” is baloney. You may say “hogwash! Gays face tremendous discrimination, stigmatization, and hostility that heteros don’t have to put up with.”

      All of this is true. However, that hardly means that heterosexual people are “privileged” on account of being heterosexual. Considering over 90% of the people I encounter are heterosexual, I’m hardly “privileged” on account of being heterosexual. Furthermore, whites who live in states such as Iowa, Oregon, and Maine are hardly “privileged” on account of being white, considering just about everyone they interact with is white.

      Also, black/other non-white political power and dominance in places such as Oakland complicates the picture (though that’s another story).

      Again, I am not denying that blacks and homosexuals face adversity. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s “white privilege” or “hetero privilege.”

      Besides, anti-racist activists need to stop speaking of black disadvantage in such terms, because they’re only reinforcing the notion of a zero sum game.

      If anti-racists try to convince whites that every single nice thing whites have comes at the expense of blacks, then there’s going to be problems.

      1. Such an implication is deeply insulting. It’s kind of similar to the way kids on the schoolyard insult fellow students by claiming that they’re spoiled rich kids (Like what happened to Vanessa after she let her friends tour the Huxtable residence!). It implies that everything whites have is unearned. True or untrue, you’re not going to win too many followers with that kind of “you’re a spoiled rich kid” rhetoric.

      2. If everything whites have comes at the expense of blacks, well then, whites are going to figure that everything blacks gain will come at their expense. After all, according to anti-racist illogic, you can’t have an up without a down, right? Therefore, why should whites support blacks, when their gains will come at our expense?

      Tulio, to clarify one more time, I’m not denying the persistence of anti-black discrimination in employment, housing, education, health care, treatment at the hands of law enforcement, etc.

      I do, however, disagree with your idea of “privilege.”

      Blacks and anti-racists see “privilege” in these very relative terms. It’s this kind of illogic that allows them to see poor whites as “privileged.” Yeah, they may not have it quite as bad as poor blacks, but that hardly means they’re living the high life.

      To me, not having to eat as big of a shit sandwich as someone else hardly makes you “privileged.” Sure, it sucks for those who have to eat a bigger shit sandwich, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the person who just has to eat the regular shit sandwich is “privileged.” Poor whites endure great hardship, and just because they don’t have to deal with the racial headaches that blacks have to deal with doesn’t mean that they’re living an easy life of “privilege.”

      Another example that illustrates the problem of defining privilege in relative terms. Relatively speaking, blacks are arguably one of the most “privileged” minorities on the face of the earth. Do minorities in China and Japan, such as Uighurs and Koreans, enjoy anywhere near the same level of rights and opportunities that blacks do? Would angry black bloggers such as Abagond and Ankhesen Mie be able to run blogs in most non-western nations that are heavily critical of the way they’re group has been treated by the majority? The list goes on and on, and I think we can answer no to all of the examples.

      Yet another example. I’m taking a course on the Caribbean, most of which involves slavery. I’ve learned that many leaders of slave revolts were “privileged” slaves, such as drivers (particularly in the Haitian Revolution). One could also argue that house slaves were “privileged,” due to the fact that they didn’t have to deal with the same brutality that field slaves had to put up with (though they did face their own problems, which is another story). However, just because drivers and house slaves didn’t have to put up with the pain the field slaves endured, hardly meant that those other slaves were “privileged.”

      So in relative terms, black Americans, house slaves, and others are “privileged,” since they have it better than others (in the case of blacks, minorities throughout the world. in the case of house slaves, field slaves).

      But you see, I define privilege in absolute terms. My definition of privilege is whether or not you live in a nice house, have plenty of food to eat, are able to enjoy a quality education, and for our rich friends, if you get to enjoy rides in Limos and have access to VIP suites.

      So Tulio, I guess we’re just disagreeing over semantics. My idea of “privilege” is a lot different from your idea of “privilege.”

      1. By the way, I hope I didn’t take the whole show with that answer.

        I’ll let Robert speak for himself, though I’m sure he’ll agree with much of my answer.

      2. It’s all right. You can always answer for me. I’m really tired nowadays and I don’t feel like answering all of the many comments, so many just get unanswered.

        I have not read this whole comment, but I agree with the tone. I resent the whole notion that I or Whites are privileged. Maybe we are. But I certainly don’t feel privileged! Not one bit! I guess I just don’t like the sound of the word. Plus it implies that we get stuff that we don’t deserve.

        That’s not really true. More likely, Whites are paid about what they deserve (If they are lucky!), or less than what they deserve (more likely). Blacks get paid a lot less than they deserve. Two groups. One gets paid less than they deserve. They other gets paid *way* less than they deserve. They both get screwed. Why is the first group privileged.

        One other thing I would argue is that things are hazy enough for Blacks these days as it is. They are lucky to get anything they are getting. Talk of White Privilege is going to seriously piss off Whites and all Blacks are going to do is get even more screwed. It’s no way to win Whites to your cause.

        I’m comfortable saying that there is discrimination against Blacks. That sounds good to me. And a lot of those discriminating are Whites, it’s true. But the word privilege just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Anyway, only PC Whites are going to buy into this privilege stuff. And sure the minorities will come along. But Blacks need to win over Whites, not piss them off. This is no way to do that.

        It also implies that we Whites have stuff that we didn’t earn and it needs to be taken away from us and given to Blacks. Considering that neither group is getting what they deserve, that’s hardly the way to go about making things more fair.

        Being White is no piece of cake.

        1. Agreed. Being “White” is no piece of cake.

          I also noticed your response to posts are down. Everything okay on your end?

          I used to run a website myself. One with huge traffic, and I eventually got burned out by it. Literally. I sold it for $100 bucks, just to get rid of it. Could have made 10 times that amount, but just wanted it gone.

        2. Are you asking me? Well, I’m really tired. I haven’t had my allergy shots in over 2 months and I need them bad. So that’s why I’m not responding much.

        1. Thank you Robert. It’s always good to have support!

          Your blog and my comments should be required reading for whites who are susceptible to “white privilege”arguments, as well as white advocates vulnerable to extreme WN.

          If only more whites would read this blog.

      3. Personally, I’m not interested in having anything taken from White people and given to Black people.

        Some of you seem to have the idea that huge numbers of Black people in this country are fixated on this idea of White privilege and how to take it away or something.

        Most Black people aren’t concentrating on this at all. Most aren’t even concentrating on White people. There are other, more pressing concerns in life.

        Also, when people talk about privilege, they aren’t necessarily talking about goods that can be redistributed.

        1. Well then, as I told Tulio, I guess our definitions of “privilege” are just different.

          I don’t define privilege in relative terms. I define privilege in absolute terms.

          But it’s good to hear that most blacks aren’t interested in us or taking our stuff. I really want to believe that, but somehow it sounds too good to be true.

          I read somewhere that one white person told a black person that “we can do whatever you want with race relations, so long as it doesn’t involve my wallet.”

          I would also add living space and schooling.

        2. I grew up with and around Black people. Race is always a concern of Black people, but most of us don’t get up every morning with White people and their privilege on our minds.

          We’re thinking about a lot of the same thing most Whites are thinking about: living expenses, school, kids, family, relationships, all the usual stuff that occupies most people.

      4. I think you guys are making this WAY too complicated. Far more than it needs to be. Look, it’s just this simple to me — If I’m doing work just as valuable as a white doing the same thing, yet I’m being paid less, then that means there’s a privilege in being white. I don’t know why that’s so controversial. There’s also a privilege in being white in many other things, some easily measurable, some not so easy to measure. Sure there’s privilege in many things outside of race, but in the case of race, it’s always been SYSTEMATIC. That’s what I think you guys aren’t getting here. Sure there’s privilege in being tall, or beautiful or rich or whatever, but that was never encoded into the constitution or the laws or the courts. White privilege WAS. Now you may say, “well those laws are gone now” and of course you’d be right, but the laws were created by social attitudes, which don’t change so fast just because someone signed the law into irrelevance. Many of the social attitudes still remain, have real life implications and show up in figures such as Robert reports in his post, or in some judges decision to penalize crack more than cocaine which means way more black men end up going to prison for drug charges(and for harsher sentences) than whites.

        White privilege exists. It simply does. Deny it all you want.

        1. I just want to underscore a key point. I know there’s a gazillion ways in which someone could be privileged. But what makes the difference is whether it has been historically systematized and outright sanctioned. There has always been a privilege in being white, there has always been a privilege in being male, there has always been a privilege in being straight. We made our laws in this country so that that was always the case.

          There are some blacks that are more privileged than whites, but as is always the case with social studies, we focus on the aggregate, not the outliers. Just because there are poor whites in trailers and rich blacks like Kobe Bryant doesn’t mean that the averages for both groups don’t matter.

        2. Why can’t you just call it discrimination? We are totally ok with the notion that there is discrimination against Blacks. But hollering White Privilege won’t get you anywhere at all, and all you’re going to do is piss off Whites.

          But let me ask you a question. Do you, and Blacks in general, even care about pissing off Whites? Do you even think about that? Because you should. The more you piss us off, the less compromises you will get from us.

          Not to mention that 90% of the people yelling about White privilege (though not necessarily you) are anti-White POS’s.

        3. People may never agree on what to call it.

          The flip side of “discrimination” is “privilege.”

        4. Well, to me telling the truth is more important than whether I piss people off. As a race realist, I’m sure you understand that notion. I mean after all, saying that some groups have lower IQs isn’t going to win you any friends either, but hey you feel it’s the truth and if you can argue that position sensibly, then go ahead and argue away.

          As for calling it discrimination, I have to give that some more thought. I’m not sure if white privilege is tantamount to discrimination, of if discrimination is a result of white privilege. I’ll mull that over a bit.

        5. If there’s two ways to say the same thing, you can say either discrimination or privilege, one way is going to really piss off Whites and lose you White support, and the other way is going to go across a lot better, why use the word that’s going to antagonize Whites the most?

          Sometimes I think Blacks actually *want* to antagonize Whites. I think they deliberately use language that’s going to piss us off the most. A lot of this anti-White anti-racist stuff from POC’s seems to about *revenge*.

          It isn’t a matter of “telling the truth.” It’s simply a choice of words.

          I just thought it over. In *all* cases, what’s argued as White privilege is really just discrimination against Blacks. At least I think so anyway. Well, in most cases.

        6. The first time I ever heard the words “white privilege” come out of someone’s mouth, it was from a white ultra-liberal high school teacher in a humanities class.

          It’s never been a part of my vocabulary for the most part until recently when I started hearing Tim Wise talking extensively about it and what he was saying made sense to me.

        7. Tulio, again, I take issue with your definition of privilege.

          If I’m doing work just as valuable as a white doing the same thing, yet I’m being paid less, then that means there’s a privilege in being white.

          Sorry, but I’m not buying that. Certainly, I am not trying to deny that blacks face adversity. We’re not trying to refute black adversity.

          However, one’s disadvantage does not always mean another’s advantage. Black disadvantage does not necessarily equal “white privilege.”

          Again, I define privilege in absolute terms, not relative terms. Heck, in relative terms, blacks are arguably one of the most privileged minorities on the face of the earth. They enjoy countless rights and opportunities that minorities elsewhere don’t get to enjoy. However, that doesn’t mean that they’re “privileged” in absolute terms.

          I find it strange the way blacks and their anti-racist allies obsessively focus on “white privilege.” The real problem is black disadvantage. Relative to blacks, Asians receive better treatment and are not stigmatized nearly as much (in spite of a few headaches that come with being Asian).

          Might as well call it non-black privilege. Let’s face it: all “white privilege” really is is the lack of black disadvantage. There’s no necessary link between the two.

          Better yet, I’ll quote one of your favorite black thinkers, Ta-Nehisi Coates:

          We err when we talk about racism as this force that ultimately helps whites, but hurts blacks. The truth is that white people have paid terribly for America’s original sin. Consider that while other countries were able to relatively peaceably excise themselves from slavery, America had to sacrifice some 700,000 of its young in order to move forward. That is a horrible toll. Look at the Civil Rights movement and compare, say, the fates of Atlanta and Birmingham, and then look at how the two cities handle the impending epoch of integration. I confess no hard evidence here, but is it a mistake that some of the least prosperous states in the country are also some of the most historically anti-black? Beyond history, from the perspective of cold capitalism, we are in a dog fight for dominance with rising powers. Isn’t every black child we lose to a broken educational system a soldier lost before we could even enlist her for the coming battle?

          And another

          [Obama’s blackness] rejects an opportunistic ignorance of racism but understands that esoteric ramblings about white-skin privilege do not move the discussion further.

          Those are his two articles if you wish to read them.

          But anyway, I think the point is clear. One’s disadvantage does not equal another’s advantage. Not everything is a zero sum game. Yeah, it sucks to be black in many ways. However, that does not mean that being white is all ice cream sundaes as blacks seem to think it is. In fact, even Tim Wise, the philosopher king of the radical anti-racist left, points out (you know, when he’s actually being serious and honest about trying to foster real change, as opposed to simply fucking with whites for the heck of it) that in absolute terms, “white privilege” is more harmful than beneficial. When he’s actually going beyond his dogma for once, I can actually agree with him. A few of his points.

          -Look at prisons. While in RELATIVE terms, whites enjoy more advantages than blacks since they aren’t the ones being heavily incarcerated, they are hurt in ABSOLUTE terms, because prisons are expensive to maintain and that money could go to the benefit of everyone, including whites.

          -Job discrimination. While one could argue that whites are “privileged” in RELATIVE terms, since they make more money than blacks, in ABSOLUTE terms, whites are also hurt, since the stagnation of black wages hurts the overall economy and makes this nation less productive.

          -Same thing with education. In RELATIVE terms, whites enjoy better education than blacks. But in ABSOLUTE terms, whites are hurt, because the disproportionate black underclass is a burden on the nation. Improving black education would help everyone.

          You see Tulio, that’s the angle blacks and anti-racists need to take. Unless I’m mistaken, you guys are actually interested in achieving meaningful social change, correct? You’re not just trying to score cheap rhetorical points with whites over a blog, true?

          I agree with Robert. It seems as if polemicists such as Wise and other radical activists are just deliberately trying to piss whites off for the heck of it.

          As Ta-Nehisi also points out, if blacks want something from whites, everything they get from now on is going to be a compromise. As distasteful as this might be to many blacks (who see it as surrendering to white racism), you’re going to have to approach us in a more reasonable and less self-righteous manner.

          Otherwise, you’re just going to piss us off, we won’t help you, and we’ll all go back to doing our thing.

          And isn’t it funny how you never even thought of “white privilege” until radical white agitators brought it up?

          In conclusion, one’s disadvantage does not necessarily equal another’s privilege. Also, my definition of privilege is different from yours.

          Finally, if you really want to achieve meaningful change, and are not just looking to smugly lecture whites, you and those with your leanings need to change your approach.

          As I said before, using a certain kind of “you’re a spoiled rich kid” rhetoric won’t endear anyone to your cause.

          Look, I’m not asking blacks to kiss our ass and make us feel good, but if you want us to help you, then approach us the right way. Otherwise, we’ll just tune you out.

        8. I mean, are any of you guys (blacks and anti-racists) actually interested in constructively ending racism? Or do you just get a kick out of telling whites how spoiled and oppressive they are?

          I also meant to make another point. Yes, I’ve read the history, and I understand where “institutionalized racism” comes from.

          However, from a legal standpoint, whites are nowhere near as dominant as you think. In fact, from a purely legal standpoint, whites in many ways are at a disadvantage. I finished reading “The New Color Line” by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton (Yeah I know, they’re surely a bunch of whiny reactionaries), which documents Brown V. Board, the Civil Rights Act, and their complicated legal aftermaths. The laws certainly have been changed.

          Also, look at the Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC is a taxpayer funded entity that has the ability to remain exclusively black, even if it means discriminating against white congressmen who represent majority black districts.

          Therefore, from a purely legal standpoint, private white organizations should have the right to be exclusive, since a publicly funded black organization can be exclusive.

          And no, don’t give me any of that “whites are the dominant group. Racism = prejudice + power. Only whites can be racist, while black organizations are a reaction white supremacy.” Blah blah blah.

          But from a purely legal standpoint, how can you justify an explicitly racial organization like the CBC remaining exclusive while receiving taxpayer money? If whites really were so dominant legally, wouldn’t it be the other way around?

          On another note, you criticized us for making this way too complicated. Well, tough.

          As the always insightful commenter Thaddeus over at Abagond points out, the problem with Americans (white, black, leftist, right wing) is that we don’t prefer the real story. We don’t prefer a scientific position on issues such as race. We only care about rhetoric that makes us feel good.

          So yes, let’s make things complicated.

  3. Hmm. I’m not really sure how you’ve jumped to the wage gap from the other bits to be honest. Wage gap is probably more to do with differences between occupation while the study you cite seems to be talking about than differences in productivity within occupation, unless I’m wrong. IQ is probably important in determining the structure of occupations within an ethnic group.

    Now, I’m assuming the study works on evaluating subjects relative to their occupation and is talking about within occupation job performance (for some shopping basket of occupations) because I can’t imagine that they’ve worked out some kind of labor calculus that weights job performance against all possible jobs (if that’s even a coherent idea then it’s a dream for all Marxists, but they probably haven’t done it). I’m not too surprised that between group differences in IQ don’t predict between group differences in job performance on this basis.

    Likewise I think reduced between group differences in within job performance relative to between group differences in IQ might be explained by occupational sorting. For example, if differences in IQ strongly predict different occupations, then obviously between group differences in IQ wouldn’t explain much in terms of differences between groups within a particular occupation (which would be why difference between job performance between group would have a low magnitude compared to between job performance in IQ), though there would be some since occupational sorting wouldn’t be perfect (even if we assume that occupational sorting is purely by IQ there’s room for natural error or even possibly discrimination). I think IQ probably also differs in how predictive it is in different occupations. Some are wide open and have a lot of scope for people to use both high IQ and low IQ and make a lot or a little money depending on how much they have, while most probably aren’t.

    In general, as well I think discrimination really shouldn’t be treated like some kind of null hypothesis, let alone accepted when it is presented in an explicitly unfalsifiable way (institutional racism that is detectable only through careful interpretation of cherry picked pop culture semiotics or tone of voice and only then when you are part of a specific group that has a strong bias to accept it anyway is probably the nadir of this trend. complete WTF?).

    1. No, it’s correct. They were looking at Blacks and Whites in the same jobs, and Blacks do perform somewhat worse, but way better than would be expected based on their IQ’s.

      It’s not that much. I think it might justify paying the White worker $10/hour and the Black worker $9.50/hour or something like that if you were paying based strictly on performance. But Blacks are screwed wagewise way worse than that.

      1. Yeah, but the reason why Black and White people in the US have different wages is largely because they don’t have the same jobs though, no? They have different jobs that pay differently. And the reason they do is because the IQ difference makes them differently employable, isn’t it?

        It’s not really relevant that performance is only slightly worse in the same jobs compared to the IQ difference, if the pay is much worse, because IQ puts them in different jobs in the first place.

        1. Analogously. Let’s say Chinese people have the same effectiveness as Whites in the same jobs (if this is untrue, let me know) but have a higher group income.

          Asian privilege? Anti-White discrimination? Best not to go looking for these things if they have different jobs because of different IQ in the first place.

  4. Saying that white hereditarians even if right don’t have black best interests at heart….begs the question…if white hereditarians prioritize white interests does this ipso facto verify your claim?

    Black nationalists claim black spiritual-racial imperative can only be effectualized in a re-segregated society or nation. I suppose one could accuse them of not having blacks best interests at heart too.

    When the CRA was effected, forcibly integrated America meant the demise of a huge number of black businesses effective to this day. I suspect the liberal integrationists of both races could be accused of not having blacks’ best interests at heart.

    1. It’s a real problem. I have tons of notes piled up over years. The links worked at the time that I did the notes, but not necessarily when I finally write up the article much later. Sorry about that. The study must be in that book somewhere, but I could not find it.

Leave a Reply

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


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)