https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/why-po...
The reason that the racial component comes out is that Black children are over-represented in poor communities due to systemic racism
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligenc...
[1]: https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what-is-...
Going much over 100 has little correlation with wealth which is what most studies use. Then you run into correlation doesn’t equal causation problem too.
Surely you jest. It really doesn't matter how you define success, IQ is a valid predictor of pretty much any definition of success you can think of. Income, academic achievement, you name it.
Do you really not see the issue?
He’s also served the counter argument on a plate: pick a reasonable definition of success, and find little or no correlation to IQ. You only need to agree the definition is “reasonable”, and the study is not flawed.
Let us look at the USA of today and its social ills. Quality of a random person's life is undeniably better if they manage:
* to avoid going into jail/prison, * to always have a home, * to be drug-free, or at least drug addiction-free, * to be fit (= not obese), * to be employed or self-employed, * to finish their high school education at least.
Those points might sound modest, but if someone can tick off all of them, they are already sorta successful, especially compared to someone who can only tick off one or two.
A nation of people who could tick off 5 of 6 would probably be much happier than contemporary America.
Do all those points correlate with IQ? I would guess yes, but IANA Social Scientist.
The activists who talk about inequities at the population group level, and ignore the statistics on teen birth rates and single parent family rates above 70% isn't being honest.
Across all ethnic groups, isolating for income level, males raised without fathers commit crimes at dramatically higher rates, drop-out of school at dramatically higher rates, and are more likely to engage in violence. I grew up in a poor county that happened to be mostly Black, but with a significant population of poor whites as well. The common denominator of kids dropping out of school, or getting arrested for hitting their mom when they were 14, 15 years old wasn't race, it was absentee fathers. Incarceration rates aren't remotely high enough to explain the absent fathers in the United States. The vast, vast majority of absentee fathers are not in prison, they are just not around.
The US military developed it not as a tool to exclude, but to INCLUDE as many males in the draft as possible during World War I and after.
The determination was that anyone below 85 IQ is literally a net drag on performance in the battlefield, and is unable to add value without a quantity of supervision that is detrimental to a fighting unit.
The harsh realities of IQ go against the grain of both of the major US political parties:
The GOP myth of everyone working hard to uplift themselves simply can't apply to about 10% of the population. There is simply nothing a person born with an 85 IQ can do to succeed in the modern world without a lot of help and assistance that almost certainly needs to come from some form of collective, probably the government.
The Democratic myth is that, given enough help, and with obstacles such as racism removed, everyone can succeed. Therefore, they believe that unequal outcomes are evidence of some form of systemic discrimination. There is no level of discrimination you can remove that is going to help the 10% of the population at or below 85% succeed in the modern world. Cash payments to this population are simply not going to ever yield any form of self-sufficiency in a post-industrial economy.
It's a miserable reality that I hate to think about, and simply makes me sad. Any one of us reading this comment could have been born with this affliction, and I think we should be extremely hones when assessing how to correct this injustice of birth and give these human beings a life that is as meaningful and happy as possible. The lies we tell ourselves do them no favors.
Historical racism isn't the same thing as the nebulous, impossible to define "systemic" racism, which basically means whatever the activist group pushing it wants it to mean. Typically, they look at any discrepancy in outcomes between two groups, ignore the complex multi-variate nature of said issue, and reduce it down to race, making the claim of "systemic" racism. The vast majority of CS grads from universities are males, but you never see this mentioned in claims of "systemic sexism" in the tech industry. Gender activism, like race activism, only goes in one direction, always.
The same activist groups tend to ignore factors such as 50% of all murders in the US being perpetrated by, and victimizing, Black Americans. This kind of statistic is inconvenient for their narrative of police deliberately arresting people based on race, vs. the fact that they commit crimes disproportionately. Also, constantly cited is the discrepancy in crack penalties vs. cocaine penalties. This ignores the fact that crack and meth (a drug used predominantly by Whites) have equivalently harsh penalties, and also ignores the fact that these harsh penalties were demanded and campaigned for by Black politicians in the 90's, reacting to the destruction of their communities by the crack epidemic. There is a clear record of this, as evidenced by Joe Biden being a huge proponent of the Crime Bill. He and other Democrats were being urged to push the Crime Bill by his own party's Black politicians.
Growing up in the rural south in a trailer park, the subculture of White people I belong to commit crimes at vastly higher rates than Whites in other parts of the country. They are arrested and shot by police at equally higher rates as well. Again, the low-resolution, activist driven narrative ignores all of this, treating White people in New York City and in Kentucky as being part of a homogenous group, instead of correctly identifying the vast cultural differences between the two going back to the completely different European cultures they are descended from (Dutch/wealthy English vs. dirt poor Ulster Scots emigrants).
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Italian_regio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_states_by_GRP_p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Belgian_provinces_by_G...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romania_-_Nominal_GD...
Do you think that targeting people based on income level would be a superior way to address this issue? If it was based on income, rather than skin color, wouldn't it disproportionately help Black children while simultaneously not leaving other disadvantaged groups out in the cold?