Assuming that one racial group is on average smarter than another, so what?

[Gyrate]

Let's assume that it has been demonstrated that Group A has a lower average IQ than Group B, even accounting for cultural factors.

So what? What use is this information? You can't transfer the assumptions from the general to the specific, so it tells you nothing about whether a specific member of Group A is more or less intelligent than you. You can't make public policy decisions based on it. You can't base educational practice on it. About all it's good for is to make members of Group B feel marginally superior to members of Group A based on what is essentially a tribal affiliation basis (Go Group B! Rah!), and even then this will only really matter to those who are desperate enough to have their existences validated that they must cling to statistical trivia with no practical application.

I'm not looking to rehash the arguments of a few dozen other threads about whether such a difference actually exists. I just want to know what the point of it all is.

[RickJay]

I've always thought this too. I mean, if you could show blacks have a slightly lower IQ than whites on average, it won't change the fact that Barack Obama, Thomas Sowell, or Sylvester Gates are a hell of a lot smarter than I am.

[brazil84]

The main advantage for me is that it would take away the "disparate impact" argument. For example, if very few Blacks score high enough to pass the test to become a firefighter, we are often told that it's strong evidence of discrimination and that the fire department needs to spend a lot of public money hiring Black firefighters who would not have otherwise been accepted. Further, as a practical matter the fire department would have to relax its hiring standards either for all applicants or only Black applicants.

This strikes me as unfair as well as a public safety hazard.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by brazil84

The main advantage for me is that it would take away the "disparate impact" argument. For example, if very few Blacks score high enough to pass the test to become a firefighter, we are often told that it's strong evidence of discrimination and that the fire department needs to spend a lot of public money hiring Black firefighters who would not have otherwise been accepted. Further, as a practical matter the fire department would have to relax its hiring standards either for all applicants or only Black applicants.

This strikes me as unfair as well as a public safety hazard.

But again, you'd have to apply the general results to the specific. Just because one group is less intelligent ON AVERAGE than another doesn't tell you anything about individual applicants to the fire department and doesn't discount the possibility that they are genuinely being discriminated against.

I mean, I agree that hiring should be done on a strict merit basis and assuming that not having a particular ethnic mix is automatically proof of discrimination is ridiculous, but it's not a problem solved by knowing the average intelligence of various groups. In fact, you're already encouraging active discrimination by assuming that a black applicant is too stupid to pass the test before they've even taken it.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by brazil84

The main advantage for me is that it would take away the "disparate impact" argument. For example, if very few Blacks score high enough to pass the test to become a firefighter, we are often told that it's strong evidence of discrimination and that the fire department needs to spend a lot of public money hiring Black firefighters who would not have otherwise been accepted. Further, as a practical matter the fire department would have to relax its hiring standards either for all applicants or only Black applicants.

This strikes me as unfair as well as a public safety hazard.

Firefighters might need many skills in their line of work, but mighty brainage is not among them. In fact, one could say it's adverse to the profession, on account of only a bloody idjit runs into a building while it's on fire .

[orcenio]

The main goal of most race realists is to, both, "testify" and raise awareness of their bigoted views. Remember that most are very committed to preaching "the genetic, mental inferiority of the black race," and since this goes against the accepted scientific/public understanding of humanity most racialists consider it a victory when people either 1) engage them 2) indulge their delusions.

It is very important that one be aware of this when one starts up a thread called: Assuming that one racial group is on average smarter than another, so what? or Statistically, blacks score poorly on IQ and IQ-proxy exams than whites, is black genetics to blame?

Allow me to cannibalize a previous post of mine.

If I bring up a debate in GD claiming that so-n-so's "mother is a whore" it's main purpose might not be to debate the accuracy of my claim, but simply to make the claim itself. IOW I'm simply calling your mother a "whore."

[John Mace]

Depends on how big the delta is between the median and how big the standard deviation is.

But in general, yes, we shouldn't do anything differently as a matter of public policy, which should be geared to individuals and not groups. Note, however, that racial prejudice among the general populace of Group B against Group A is going to increase, since they have science behind them, in a manner of speaking. Most people don't understand statistics.

[Morgenstern]

What is smarter? Better at algebra? Better at playing a piano?

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Just because one group is less intelligent ON AVERAGE than another doesn't tell you anything about individual applicants to the fire department and doesn't discount the possibility that they are genuinely being discriminated against.

I agree. But how does this contradict my point?

I mean, I agree that hiring should be done on a strict merit basis and assuming that not having a particular ethnic mix is automatically proof of discrimination is ridiculous, but it's not a problem solved by knowing the average intelligence of various groups.

Why not? I mean, if test performance is correlated with IQ, and one knows the IQ distributions of Blacks and other groups, one could do a statistical analysis and predict roughly what percentage of the passing candidates will be Black. If the actual passing percentage is at that level, then there's no evidence of discrimination.

[Implicit]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Why not? I mean, if test performance is correlated with IQ, and one knows the IQ distributions of Blacks and other groups, one could do a statistical analysis and predict roughly what percentage of the passing candidates will be Black. If the actual passing percentage is at that level, then there's no evidence of discrimination.

Are you going to break that down further to account for mixed heritage or are you basing this all on the one drop rule? Don't you think that will impact your predictions? There is no practical value to the model or the predictions you propose.

[Boyo Jim]

Finding a difference like that will lead to some people claiming the other group isn't really human, doesn't deserve all human rights like the right to vote.

[Hyperelastic]

Originally Posted by John Mace

But in general, yes, we shouldn't do anything differently as a matter of public policy, which should be geared to individuals and not groups.

To me this is an important distinction to make when judging whether a certain action or opinion is "racist". Take for example the propensity to commit violent crime. If I know nothing else about a person than his race (for instance if he's a stranger approaching me on a deserted subway platform), it is a fact that if the person is black, he is many times more likely to commit a violent crime than if he is Asian. Knowing this fact, and acting accordingly, is not racist. But if the guy happens to be black, and as he approaches I notice he's carrying a medical textbook and wearing surgical scrubs, it changes the calculation tremendously. Likewise if he's Asian and I notice tattoos all up and down his arms, the facts have changed. The racist is the person who is still more wary of the black guy, even knowing this added information.

Public policy tends to force people to treat others as members of groups and not individuals, with the predictable consequence of disparate treatment that is often completely defensible. The answer is to restrain public policy and let people treat people as individuals, not to pretend every group is equal in every way.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Implicit

Are you going to break that down further to account for mixed heritage or are you basing this all on the one drop rule?

I would guess that further breakdown is not necessary.

Don't you think that will impact your predictions?

Perhaps. My instinct is that it wouldn't make a big enough difference to worry about.

There is no practical value to the model or the predictions you propose.

I disagree and I think a hypothetical example will demonstrate it:

Let's suppose that there are a thousand applicants for some job or school position - 150 black and 850 white. 135 of the White applicants pass the test but only 5 of the blacks pass. Thus, even though Blacks made up 15% of the applicants they only made up 3 1/2 percent of the group which passed the test.

As a society, should we infer race discrimination based on these facts?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Just because one group is less intelligent ON AVERAGE than another doesn't tell you anything about individual applicants to the fire department and doesn't discount the possibility that they are genuinely being discriminated against.

Sure, but just because one group is more likely to be discriminated against ON AVERAGE than another group doesn't tell you anything about individual applicants, including whether or not they were discriminated against.

I would agree with the notion that policy should be based on individuals, not groups. If an individual applicant to the fire department can show he or she has been discriminated against, then he has cause for legal action. If applicants from group X are less successful than other groups, that does not show discrimination against any individual.

Regards,
Shodan

[Belowjob2.0]

Originally Posted by orcenio

The main goal of most race realists is to, both, "testify" and raise awareness of their bigoted views. Remember that most are very committed to preaching "the genetic, mental inferiority of the black race," and since this goes against the accepted scientific/public understanding of humanity most racialists consider it a victory when people either 1) engage them 2) indulge their delusions.

It is very important that one be aware of this when one starts up a thread called: Assuming that one racial group is on average smarter than another, so what? or Statistically, blacks score poorly on IQ and IQ-proxy exams than whites, is black genetics to blame?

Allow me to cannibalize a previous post of mine.

If I bring up a debate in GD claiming that so-n-so's "mother is a whore" it's main purpose might not be to debate the accuracy of my claim, but simply to make the claim itself. IOW I'm simply calling your mother a "whore."

Exactly. The pseudoscience is just a smokescreen for the attack.

"Why? Because Science says so," is the new version of "Why? Because the Bible says so." Never mind that neither the Bible nor science say anything of the kind. The point is to tie racialism to the powerful source of authority available in society at the time.

Then as now, maintaining racial divisions serves the interests of capitalist oligarchy.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Hyperelastic

To me this is an important distinction to make when judging whether a certain action or opinion is "racist". Take for example the propensity to commit violent crime. If I know nothing else about a person than his race (for instance if he's a stranger approaching me on a deserted subway platform), it is a fact that if the person is black, he is many times more likely to commit a violent crime than if he is Asian. Knowing this fact, and acting accordingly, is not racist. But if the guy happens to be black, and as he approaches I notice he's carrying a medical textbook and wearing surgical scrubs, it changes the calculation tremendously. Likewise if he's Asian and I notice tattoos all up and down his arms, the facts have changed. The racist is the person who is still more wary of the black guy, even knowing this added information.

Public policy tends to force people to treat others as members of groups and not individuals, with the predictable consequence of disparate treatment that is often completely defensible. The answer is to restrain public policy and let people treat people as individuals, not to pretend every group is equal in every way.

Nicely said.

[clairobscur]

Yes, theorically, it shouldn't matter that much on an individual basis, given that the "average" doesn't mean anything about a specific individual, etc...

However, given what people are, I think the results of such an information would be totally disastrous. If I were master of the world and heard about such a thing being proven, I'd likely order a total blackout and forbid the public release of the data.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Sure, but just because one group is more likely to be discriminated against ON AVERAGE than another group doesn't tell you anything about individual applicants, including whether or not they were discriminated against.

I would agree with the notion that policy should be based on individuals, not groups. If an individual applicant to the fire department can show he or she has been discriminated against, then he has cause for legal action. If applicants from group X are less successful than other groups, that does not show discrimination against any individual.

Regards,
Shodan

Test scores aside (and for most jobs, there is no test), how would one stop a company that doesn't hire people from group X at all? Historically, it is certain that many people have been discriminated against for no other reason than being a member of an identifiable group. There is no way they can prove individual discrimination, and in fact they are not being discriminated against as individuals.

[The Universe Lashes Out]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Let's suppose that there are a thousand applicants for some job or school position - 150 black and 850 white. 135 of the White applicants pass the test but only 5 of the blacks pass. Thus, even though Blacks made up 15% of the applicants they only made up 3 1/2 percent of the group which passed the test.

As a society, should we infer race discrimination based on these facts?

It's not proof of discrimination, but it does raise the possibility that discrimination may have happened.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by The Universe Lashes Out

It's not proof of discrimination, but it does raise the possibility that discrimination may have happened.

Does it still raise that possibility if, as per the OP, that's actually a bit better than you'd expect, on average?

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Historically, it is certain that many people have been discriminated against for no other reason than being a member of an identifiable group. There is no way they can prove individual discrimination, and in fact they are not being discriminated against as individuals.

It's *difficult* to prove, not impossible. To begin with some people aren't that subtle and leave evidences or witnesses. Other people might also denounce them. A method that is fine with me, and has recently been allowed as evidence in French courts (don't know about other countries) is "testing". For instance, send a nice black, well-dressed, couple to a club. If they aren't let in (too many people in already, whatever), send a similar nice, well dressed *white* couple. If those are let in, rinse and repeat. Do the whole thing with a sworn in witness (don't know if you have those in anglo-saxon countries but I guess you could find some equivalent). If there's a clear pattern, go to court.

Generally, since discrimination is difficult to prove, I favor heavy punishments for it. Even if they aren't themselves racists, business owners (a club in my example, but it might be a house rental business, for instance) can have strong incentives to discriminate (people might not want to come in a club with too many "arabs" or someone might not afford to lose the business of a prejudiced landlord) and the risk of being caught is very low. So, those incentives should pale in comparison with the consequences of being caught.

For instance, the culprit could be barred from operating a business for a very long time, a massive fine be levied on the business, and the specific person or people who discriminated (the house rental business owner/operator/employee as well as the racist landlord) send to do some comparative race behavioral studies behind walls and bars. The sought after result being to hear your typical agent saying : "Hmmm...Sir, I'd rather have you bring your business to my competitor on the other side of the street"


Note that on the other hand I'm strongly opposed to positive discrimination.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

However, given what people are, I think the results of such an information would be totally disastrous. If I were master of the world and heard about such a thing being proven, I'd likely order a total blackout and forbid the public release of the data.

I wonder if that is a difference between European and American sensibilities. I can't imagine that idea getting traction in the US.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by The Universe Lashes Out

It's not proof of discrimination, but it does raise the possibility that discrimination may have happened.

I'm not sure what you mean by "raise the possibility." Given the hypothesis in the original post, it's completely within the range of normal expectations if there is no discrimination.

And the bottom line question is what society should do in such a situation. Should the employer or school be put through the expense of a civil rights investigation? Should they be pressured to change their standards so that more blacks will be accepted?

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I wonder if that is a difference between European and American sensibilities.

Not sure, but I doubt it. Rather a personal sensibility, I think. I just have a relatively low level of confidence in people, and would expect the worst from most of them if they were handed data to feed their prejudices (or even to create prejudices).

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I'm not sure what you mean by "raise the possibility." Given the hypothesis in the original post, it's completely within the range of normal expectations if there is no discrimination.

And the bottom line question is what society should do in such a situation. Should the employer or school be put through the expense of a civil rights investigation? Should they be pressured to change their standards so that more blacks will be accepted?

[Looks at the bill of rights]

Yes to the first question, no to the second. AFAIU it is harder now to change standards and not to expect a reverse discrimination lawsuit, eternal vigilance is still needed to ensure that people follow the law both in favor of the minority and the majority.

[clairobscur]

Also, note that the current US president is black, not white, despite genetical and educational evidences to the contrary. Once he won't be black anymore, I'll consider releasing the data.

[The Universe Lashes Out]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Does it still raise that possibility if, as per the OP, that's actually a bit better than you'd expect, on average?

There are many possible ways to explain those hypothetical test results. IQ disparities along racial lines seems one of the least likely explanations. They may exist, but they obviously aren't huge differences that prevent one race from competing at all with another race.

We know racial discrimination exists, and we want to avoid it as much as possible to have top-quality fire departments. So in this case you'll want to do some work to find out is discrimination is at play here. Also, you'd look at how you are recruiting potential firefighters, in order to get the best quality recruits from a variety of demographic areas. If a good-faith effort is made in both of those areas, then you just take the best potential firefighters. You don't even have to worry about whether there are inherent IQ differences between races in that scenario.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Let's assume that it has been demonstrated that Group A has a lower average IQ than Group B, even accounting for cultural factors.

So what? What use is this information? You can't transfer the assumptions from the general to the specific, so it tells you nothing about whether a specific member of Group A is more or less intelligent than you. You can't make public policy decisions based on it. You can't base educational practice on it. About all it's good for is to make members of Group B feel marginally superior to members of Group A based on what is essentially a tribal affiliation basis (Go Group B! Rah!), and even then this will only really matter to those who are desperate enough to have their existences validated that they must cling to statistical trivia with no practical application.

I'm not looking to rehash the arguments of a few dozen other threads about whether such a difference actually exists. I just want to know what the point of it all is.

The only meaningful difference would be that when you saw differential outcomes on color-blind tests/assessments for two groups in hiring, education, performance, you would eschew any impulse to treat the outcomes as discriminatory rather than diagnostic, and thus you would eschew any impulse to implement "remedies" to address the (non-existent) discrimination.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

The only meaningful difference would be that when you saw differential outcomes on color-blind tests/assessments for two groups in hiring, education, performance, you would eschew any impulse to treat the outcomes as discriminatory rather than diagnostic, and thus you would eschew any impulse to implement "remedies" to address the (non-existent) discrimination.

What about when actual discrimination takes place?

[Farmer Jane]

Out of curiosity: Has there been any survey recently that asked people what they thought of minorities relative to IQ?

I do agree that lowering test score standards for any minority applicant is a horrific practice - it contributes to racial tensions and exasperates bad stereotypes, not to mention its backwards and racist (and ethnocentric on part of the white elite).

If my chances of getting into Harvard as a black student just gave me significant advantage over white kids with much higher scores, what does that say about black Harvard graduates? I can say that Asian kids who get in to Harvard must be the creme de la creme, because that will work against you.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

What about when actual discrimination takes place?

I hope you're not fighting the hypothetical here as some are (the OP asked us to assume that there are genuine intelligence differences -- the existence of disparities in test scores, etc., on racially neutral tests, is not, then, in itself proof or even a suggestion of discrimination, any more than different 40 yard dash times is proof that the 40 yard dash is discriminatory).

So if you're not, and if you mean that there is actual disparate treatment of equally objectively qualified people -- that is, two guys run the 40 yard dash neck and neck, but for some malicious reason, the timing guy clicks the stopwatch a second later for guy B -- than you'd address it the same way you address any other bad hiring/promotion decision -- on a case by case basis. Oh, it turns out Manager X favored candidate A over candidate B because A was his brother in law? Well, that violates our anti-nepotism policies, we're going to have to re-consider the hiring decision and potentially discipline X. Same for racial discrimination or any other non-qualification-related discrimination. Businesses and so forth, of course, have little systemic incentive to hire unqualified people when they could hire qualified people for the same rate, so this will be a comparatively rare problem.

My point being, you wouldn't imagine businesses enacting affirmative programs to seek out and give preference to people who had no familial or relational connection at all with the company as a means of furthering an anti-nepotism policy; why would one imagine doing so for irrational racial discrimination either?

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

My point being, you wouldn't imagine businesses enacting affirmative programs to seek out and give preference to people who had no familial or relational connection at all with the company as a means of furthering an anti-nepotism policy; why would one imagine doing so for irrational racial discrimination either?

I'm going to assume you don't mean that there exists rational racial discrimination. As to your question, if I understand it correctly, then here is my answer: because it was common in the past, and apparently still occurs.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Let's assume that it has been demonstrated that Group A has a lower average IQ than Group B, even accounting for cultural factors.

So what? What use is this information? You can't transfer the assumptions from the general to the specific, so it tells you nothing about whether a specific member of Group A is more or less intelligent than you. You can't make public policy decisions based on it.

You can avoid policies that assume that there should be equal group representation and assume discrimination or unfairness when that doesn't happen (see below). Instead, I agree you should simply treat people as individuals and avoid looking at their group background.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...gs_in_hir.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...black-students

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

Exactly. The pseudoscience is just a smokescreen for the attack.

Pseudoscience? I look forward to hearing you explain this on the other thread Belowjob2.0.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Depends on how big the delta is between the median and how big the standard deviation is.

But in general, yes, we shouldn't do anything differently as a matter of public policy, which should be geared to individuals and not groups. Note, however, that racial prejudice among the general populace of Group B against Group A is going to increase, since they have science behind them, in a manner of speaking. Most people don't understand statistics.

I think this thread is already demonstrating this nicely.

Originally Posted by Chen019

You can avoid policies that assume that there should be equal group representation and assume discrimination or unfairness when that doesn't happen (see below). Instead, I agree you should simply treat people as individuals and avoid looking at their group background.

Tell you what: I'll stop automatically assuming that there is discrimination if you stop automatically assuming that there isn't.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I think this thread is already demonstrating this nicely.

Tell you what: I'll stop automatically assuming that there is discrimination if you stop automatically assuming that there isn't.

The problem is assuming that unequal proportions are prima facie evidence of discrimination. In fact, based on test results, you wouldn't expect equal proportions from different ethnic groups. That's a point that Professor Amy Wax makes. She proposes either adjusting disparate impact rule to reflect statistical differences, or abolishing it.

The so-called 4/5 rule, under which an employer is presumptively liable if the percentage of minority applicants hired is less than 80% of those selected from the majority white population, reflects this assumption...These observations bode ill for employers’ efforts to comply with the disparate impact rule. The present reality of group differences, and the intransigence of the diversity-validity tradeoff, mean that even modestly useful personnel selection criteria will screen out too many minorities most of the time. Achieving racial imbalance will prove difficult or impossible for jobs that are moderately selective, and imposing even mildly demanding skill-based hurdles will often produce a workforce that leaves employers vulnerable to a disparate impact challenge.

The proposal advanced here is that disparate impact law should be revised to reflect group disparities currently measured in actual on-the-job performance...
...

The principal argument for repealing disparate impact is that, under present social conditions, racial imbalances in employment are exceedingly weak evidence of discrimination, either in the form of race-based disparate treatment or through unlawful disparate impact.

The IOP data indicate that differences in the distribution of skill and human capital, not race-based exclusion or arbitrary barriers to employment, are the principal factors behind racial imbalances on the job. In light of these realities, the disparate impact rule is fatally overbroad and ensnares far too much conduct in its net. Under current social conditions, the vast majority of commonly employed selection procedures are valid and job related, and thus do not actually violate the disparate impact rule. Yet most personnel practices will routinely show enough adverse impact to create a prima facie case of discrimination, thereby shifting the burden of justification to employers.

Wax, Amy L., “Disparate Impact Realism“. Scholarship at Penn Law. Paper 361.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Chen019

The problem is assuming that unequal proportions are prima facie evidence of discrimination. In fact, based on test results, you wouldn't expect equal proportions from different ethnic groups.

Except that you're excluding the middle ground between "It's evidence of discrimination" and "It's not evidence of discrimination" which is "It's evidence of potential discrimination". If an employer is only hiring white guys there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for it or he might be a white supremacist but I'd want to dig further before coming to either conclusion.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Except that you're excluding the middle ground between "It's evidence of discrimination" and "It's not evidence of discrimination" which is "It's evidence of potential discrimination". If an employer is only hiring white guys there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for it or he might be a white supremacist but I'd want to dig further before coming to either conclusion.

Well, the 4/5 rule is only evidence of potential discrimination. Wax's point is that unfortunately the most predictive job tests often invariably will lead to compliance issues because of group differences. So if you're looking for a policy implication, it would be in relation to that. She discusses the Ricci case which is a classic example.

[even sven]

There are plenty of (disgusting) policies you can justify with this.

Why fix US schools? Black people are never going to learn anyway, so why use our limited education funds trying to get people in the inner city to university? If they are destined for a life of servitude, so why give them the same kind of education we expect for our kids? If we give them an education based on job skills, that should be enough.

Intermarriage is now a bad thing. A white person who has children with a black person is dooming their child to a statistical likelihood of being less intelligent. Why would you do that to your child, and to the world as a whole. Better that people stick to their own.

There is no need to be outraged at black prison rates or other social problems in the black community. These can all be explained by intelligence. It doesn't show structural problems in society, but rather that black people are barely able to function on their own.

Which is also, incidentally, a good argument for keeping races separate in living situations, and perhaps increasing police surveillance and restricting freedoms.

It's all gross.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by even sven

There are plenty of (disgusting) policies you can justify with this.

Why fix US schools? Black people are never going to learn anyway,

"Black people are never going to learn anyway" is not the same thing as "black people are less intelligent, in general and on average."

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Test scores aside (and for most jobs, there is no test), how would one stop a company that doesn't hire people from group X at all?

You would have to demonstrate discrimination against one of those not getting hired.

Historically, it is certain that many people have been discriminated against for no other reason than being a member of an identifiable group. There is no way they can prove individual discrimination, and in fact they are not being discriminated against as individuals.

I don't see how there can be discrimination against a group without there being discrimination against the individuals in that group.

Regards,
Shodan

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by brazil84

"Black people are never going to learn anyway" is not the same thing as "black people are less intelligent, in general and on average."

No, but many people will derive the former from the latter. See the Levin link Chuck11 posted in the other thread for an exaxmple of this kind of thinking.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Test scores aside (and for most jobs, there is no test), how would one stop a company that doesn't hire people from group X at all? Historically, it is certain that many people have been discriminated against for no other reason than being a member of an identifiable group. There is no way they can prove individual discrimination, and in fact they are not being discriminated against as individuals.

If the level of disparity is of such magnitude that it cannot be explained by reasonable differences in average ability, then that would consitutute evidence of discrimination.

I'm with Brazil, Shodan et al in what the primary issue of assumption of different average abilities for different ethnic groups is . But I don't think you have to do away with statistical analysis either. Whether different groups have different average abilities is debatable, but it's obvious that there is no group of which all members are retarded, and any disparity that needs to rely on that assumption for an explanation has to be explained otherwise.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by brazil84

"Black people are never going to learn anyway" is not the same thing as "black people are less intelligent, in general and on average."

Yes, you can say that, because you're capable of reasoning and correctly interpreting statistical data.

My uncle, on the other hand, HAS uttered the phrase "Affirmative action is stupid, because those n*ers aren't smart enough to be in college on their own and everyone knows it."

[Farmer Jane]

Policy folk have been trying to figure out why 'black kids aren't learning' for the last four decades. In the 70s, it was determined they 'didn't know English and that's why they can't read'. (See: Labov, who helped make the case for AAVE.)

The idea that 'black kids won't learn anyway' is the driving force between many new education policy pushers.

In some areas, it's called vouchers, school choice, reform, privatization. Today...we just blame it on teachers.

[Cubsfan]

If it was discovered that blacks are generally smarter than whites it would be common topic of conversation. White guys are the only noholdsbarred targets left in America today. Any data pointing to white smarts would be summarily dismissed as racist.

Just a fact of being white in America though.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by even sven

There are plenty of (disgusting) policies you can justify with this.

It's all gross.

What about blaming inequality on a more statistically successful group? Has that ever happened? Ashkenazi Jews would be expected to be overrepresented in cognitively demanding roles based on IQ. Perhaps you would prefer to attribute that to structural unfairness in favour of jews?

[even sven]

I wouldn't say structural unfairness. But structure is a major part of it. If you look at educational institutions (schools, religious activities, family life), economic incentives and opportunities, and how educational activities are rewarded, you will likely find an explanation for how various communities approach education.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by even sven

I wouldn't say structural unfairness. But structure is a major part of it. If you look at educational institutions (schools, religious activities, family life), economic incentives and opportunities, and how educational activities are rewarded, you will likely find an explanation for how various communities approach education.

The way incentives are structured you would think would favour some communities:

Translating the advantages into SAT scores, study author Thomas Espenshade, a Princeton sociologist, calculated that African-Americans who achieved 1150 scores on the two original SAT tests had the same chances of getting accepted to top private colleges in 1997 as whites who scored 1460s and Asians who scored perfect 1600s.

Espenshade found that when comparing applicants with similar grades, scores, athletic qualifications, and family history for seven elite private colleges and universities:

Whites were three times as likely to get fat envelopes as Asians. Hispanics were twice as likely to win admission as whites. African-Americans were at least five times as likely to be accepted as whites.

[Chen019]

@ Even Swen, just another point on incentives, Bryan Caplan comments:

But is it really true that the market fails to reward blacks for getting more education? Is it even true that the market rewards them less? I tested these claims using one of the world's best labor data sets, the NLSY. The results directly contradict Tim's self-fulfilling prophesy story. Blacks actually get a substantially larger return to education than non-blacks! The same goes for experience, though the result is not statistically significant. The real lesson of the data is that if you are young, gifted, and black, you should get a ton of education, because it has an exceptionally large pay-off.