1. Exactly how important is intelligence, that innate ability, considering that many factors can cause groups to have different outcomes. And what are the groupings? How does it apprear in groups, according to race, sex, religion, nationality, demography, or any number of other subdivisions of the human species.
a. And, if there are differences in mental ability in one group, compared to another, how certain are we that of either the magnitude or the duration of that difference?
b. " For the Irish, their success took over a century before equality was achieved in income, IQ, occupations, and other socioeconomic indicia."
Thomas Sowell, "Ethnic America," chapter two.
2. Progressives claimed that intelligence was so fixed, and so important, that it had to be the basis for keeping certain races from entering the country, and to suppress the reproduction of races already living here, i.e., eugenics and sterilization.
a. The same political persuasion, that of the Left, reversed itself in the 20th century, asserting that the innate equality of the races required government intervention whenever some statistical deviation in income, occupational advancement, or other social outcomes, since disparities are presumptive evidence of discrimination. Of course, it isn't.
3. As a study of history will reveal that, far too often, 'science' is no more than some incantation to support ideology, and silence critics of fashionable assumptions.
An appeal to 'reason' is even less reliable, as it so easily lends itself to the rationalization of each of our individual's own wishes.
4. It is revealing to consider other innate characteristic, also thought to be affected primarily by genetics, and see exactly how "fixed" it really is....say, height, for example. It is generally agreed that the decimations of the Napoleonic Wars, or WWI, cost the French their biggest and strongest, since these are the ones most likely to have been taken into the army. This would mean that the average height of a race with identical genetics, but a different history, would be taller.
5. Professor Ernest Van Den Haag wrote, in "The Jewish Mystique,"... "According to Van den Haag the intelligence involved in the disproportionate Jewish contribution to scientific and cultural creation came in part because, traditionally among the Jews, the most intelligent the learned were encouraged to have large families, while in the Christian world the most intelligent were priests and encouraged to be celibate." Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Jewish Mystique
6. Special consideration should be given to re group's response to environmental or social conditions. Note the Jew's response: Van Den Haag describes how the brightest young men were encouraged to study, marry the daughter of the richest family, and have lots of children.
But what other possible kinds of scenarios exist? What if some governmental or political perspective decides that a less successful portion of society should be endowed with entitlements, welfare, doles.
And what happens if large numbers of members of a particular racial or ethnic group are willing to live on the dole and spare themselves the efforts required to rise to economic independence?
Which is worse, government programs that subsidize counterproductive lifestyles....or the acceptance of the subsidies by the group?
a. "The lessons of history show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
These words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
7. Can acceptance of the welfare lifestyle influence 'intelligence'? Professor Arthur R. Jensen write that he sensed that the IQ scores of lower-income children didn't represent their actual mental ability.
".... I felt these children were really brighter than their IQ would indicate. They often appeared inhibited in their responsiveness in the testing situation on their first visit to my office, and when this was the case I usually had them come in on two to four different days for half-hour sessions with me in a play therapy room, in which we did nothing more than get acquainted by playing ball, using finger paints, drawing on the blackboard, making things out of clay, and so forth.
As soon as the child seemed to be completely at home in this setting, I would retest him on a parallel form of the Stanford-Binet, a boost in IQ of 8 to 10 points or so was the rule; it rarely failed..." ftp://s208.math.msu.su/504000/b004fd80e4497311e1d4307bab8103da
a. Why is that simple exercise, which resulted in 8 to 10 IQ points so significant??
"Since '8 to 10 points' is more than half the average IQ difference ...between black and white Americans, the disappearance of that much IQ differential from a simple change...suggest that the magnitude [of racial mental ability]" may not be all that fixed, after all.
Sowell, "Intelligence and Race," p. 61.
See where this is going?
Governmental policy....
...Liberal vs conservative....
The future of our people, our nation.
a. And, if there are differences in mental ability in one group, compared to another, how certain are we that of either the magnitude or the duration of that difference?
b. " For the Irish, their success took over a century before equality was achieved in income, IQ, occupations, and other socioeconomic indicia."
Thomas Sowell, "Ethnic America," chapter two.
2. Progressives claimed that intelligence was so fixed, and so important, that it had to be the basis for keeping certain races from entering the country, and to suppress the reproduction of races already living here, i.e., eugenics and sterilization.
a. The same political persuasion, that of the Left, reversed itself in the 20th century, asserting that the innate equality of the races required government intervention whenever some statistical deviation in income, occupational advancement, or other social outcomes, since disparities are presumptive evidence of discrimination. Of course, it isn't.
3. As a study of history will reveal that, far too often, 'science' is no more than some incantation to support ideology, and silence critics of fashionable assumptions.
An appeal to 'reason' is even less reliable, as it so easily lends itself to the rationalization of each of our individual's own wishes.
4. It is revealing to consider other innate characteristic, also thought to be affected primarily by genetics, and see exactly how "fixed" it really is....say, height, for example. It is generally agreed that the decimations of the Napoleonic Wars, or WWI, cost the French their biggest and strongest, since these are the ones most likely to have been taken into the army. This would mean that the average height of a race with identical genetics, but a different history, would be taller.
5. Professor Ernest Van Den Haag wrote, in "The Jewish Mystique,"... "According to Van den Haag the intelligence involved in the disproportionate Jewish contribution to scientific and cultural creation came in part because, traditionally among the Jews, the most intelligent the learned were encouraged to have large families, while in the Christian world the most intelligent were priests and encouraged to be celibate." Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Jewish Mystique
6. Special consideration should be given to re group's response to environmental or social conditions. Note the Jew's response: Van Den Haag describes how the brightest young men were encouraged to study, marry the daughter of the richest family, and have lots of children.
But what other possible kinds of scenarios exist? What if some governmental or political perspective decides that a less successful portion of society should be endowed with entitlements, welfare, doles.
And what happens if large numbers of members of a particular racial or ethnic group are willing to live on the dole and spare themselves the efforts required to rise to economic independence?
Which is worse, government programs that subsidize counterproductive lifestyles....or the acceptance of the subsidies by the group?
a. "The lessons of history show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
These words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
7. Can acceptance of the welfare lifestyle influence 'intelligence'? Professor Arthur R. Jensen write that he sensed that the IQ scores of lower-income children didn't represent their actual mental ability.
".... I felt these children were really brighter than their IQ would indicate. They often appeared inhibited in their responsiveness in the testing situation on their first visit to my office, and when this was the case I usually had them come in on two to four different days for half-hour sessions with me in a play therapy room, in which we did nothing more than get acquainted by playing ball, using finger paints, drawing on the blackboard, making things out of clay, and so forth.
As soon as the child seemed to be completely at home in this setting, I would retest him on a parallel form of the Stanford-Binet, a boost in IQ of 8 to 10 points or so was the rule; it rarely failed..." ftp://s208.math.msu.su/504000/b004fd80e4497311e1d4307bab8103da
a. Why is that simple exercise, which resulted in 8 to 10 IQ points so significant??
"Since '8 to 10 points' is more than half the average IQ difference ...between black and white Americans, the disappearance of that much IQ differential from a simple change...suggest that the magnitude [of racial mental ability]" may not be all that fixed, after all.
Sowell, "Intelligence and Race," p. 61.
See where this is going?
Governmental policy....
...Liberal vs conservative....
The future of our people, our nation.
