tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post5271544943209801504..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’principled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-35475386503517780792016-07-03T08:43:07.391-04:002016-07-03T08:43:07.391-04:00I'm not sure what our areas of disagreement ar...I'm not sure what our areas of disagreement are. We both agree: (1) that groups have different average intelligence; and (2) this likely has some biological/genetic component.<br /><br />I don't understand why, however, you think these averages are irrelevant. Say you are driving home at night and you can drive through city A which is populated by a group with an IQ of 100 and city B, which is populated by a group with an average IQ of 85. Knowing that lower IQ is correlated with higher crime, I'm sure you'd drive through city A.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-6114990245323823372016-07-02T12:17:22.092-04:002016-07-02T12:17:22.092-04:00Steve,
You don’t have to be “an expert on what th...Steve,<br /><br />You don’t have to be “an expert on what the Founders believed” to understand what they meant by “All men are created equal.” It’s not a denial of human diversity in intelligence, ambition, values, and myriad other characteristics. Nor is it a denial of abstract group averages. It means equality of individual rights and government protection thereof. It means that no man is inherently endowed with the right to rule others, or to be ruled; to enslave others, or to be enslaved.<br /><br />Group averages are irrelevant, since the group however defined or labeled is an abstraction. Only individuals exist. The idea of “group intelligence” is profoundly collectivist and racist, and completely mystical and thus nonsensical, lacking any grounding in reality. Only individuals can think and choose. As long as the government protects rights equally and at all times—including refraining from engaging in both legally enforced segregation and legally enforced integration—the sum of the voluntary choices of individuals may result in both racially homogenous and racially mixed communities. Or not. In this sense, “some amount of segregation [may be] inevitable” (although “segregation” based on voluntary choice is not real segregation). <br /><br />As you acknowledge, “No one, except a hard core bigot, thinks that a person's beliefs are determined by his race.” Exactly the point. This is not to deny the statistics. It’s to say that statistical group averages are irrelevant to judging real people in the real world. As long as freedom based on individual rights exists, and the government does its job of protecting against crime, no one who doesn’t demand the unearned and doesn’t seek the power to rule others is a threat to anyone else regardless of statistical correlations. Only collectivism leads to perpetual conflict.principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-61145798095102474052016-07-02T08:54:12.414-04:002016-07-02T08:54:12.414-04:00I may have said this before, but nothing I've ...I may have said this before, but nothing I've said is "racist." The genes for intelligence haven't been found, but around a dozen genes that correspond to intelligence have been found and they are more common in whites & north Asians than in blacks. The chance of this being random are extremely small. Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame) has said that in less than 5 years we will have absolute proof of innate differences in group intelligence.<br /><br />Speaking of Murray, he once suggested a study where researchers of various stripes would do geenetic testing of blacks (who average 20% European genes) and measure their intelligence and see if there is a correlation between racial mixture and IQ. No one of the culture / environment only side would join him. Think about it: how many social controversies could be solved by an easy experiment, and yet no one will do it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-23356205166243651672016-07-02T08:33:48.158-04:002016-07-02T08:33:48.158-04:005. I'm not an expert on what the founders beli...5. I'm not an expert on what the founders believed. But like most people prior to 1950, most probably believed that there were differences among the races in terms of intelligence and behavior and that these differences were unlikely to go away.* Even Lincoln pointed out that blacks and whites were unlikely to get along and supported the Colonization Society (voluntarily returning blacks to Africa). <br /><br />6. Based on the above, some amount of segregation is inevitable and, in fact, desirable.<br /><br />7. Again, I have to disagree with Schwartz. No one, except a hard core bigot, thinks that a person's beliefs are determined by his race. However - given the realities of group differences - differences in intelligence and behavior will become evident after you get a random samples of a group. The British have an IQ of 100. Austrialian Aboriginies have an IQ of probably in the 70s. Aborigines never produced anything of cultural note. And observe that these differences remain 225 years later.<br /><br />_____________<br />*Apparently it was the rise of behaviorism and the evil of Nazism that led people to deny the reality of racial differences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-52146728036634114552016-07-02T08:16:08.000-04:002016-07-02T08:16:08.000-04:00I won't repeat myself on why I think racial di...I won't repeat myself on why I think racial differences in intelligence are important, but I'll make some additional points:<br /><br />1. The civil rights movement was legitimate to the extent it sought to end government enforced discrimination. But that obviously the whole of the movement, which wanted to end private discrimination. Quotas, affirmative action, men using womens' bathrooms and forbidding people from baking cakes are the result of the movement.<br /><br />2. Martin King was not, as some people think, an advocate of a color blind society. He was a communist who supported quotas.<br /><br />3. Racially diverse societies are not necessarily desirable. In a practical matter, they don't often work. Mexico is an example - 1/3 population Meso-American, 1/3 European, 1/3 mixed. Mexico has produced on Nobel prize in the hard sciences and has a population of 120 million. Luxembourg has produced 2 with a population of around 500,000. Mexico's cultural achievements have been a few left wing writers and painters.<br /><br />4. There is actually evidence that racial diversity is bad. More diverse societies tend to be less charitable and less civic minded. There is evidence that both blacks and whites do worse in integrated schools.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.com