What’s Wrong with the World

Thank you, thank you for posting this, particularly the reference to his innumeracy. As regards the rest of it, well, while some friends and I have appreciated some of Raimondo's contributions over the years, he seems rather, well, excitable, even histrionic.

Unfortunately someone has to win that argument. Caleb Stegall offers some interesting commentary on the matter at Takis.

Well, Maximos, somebody had to say something like this, sooner or later.

...particularly the reference to his innumeracy.

Raimondo may be all those things, but he is also right about the mythology of racialists. Nearly all of their claims are stronger than what the data allows for. They also frequently violate the first rule of statistics that correlation does not equal causation.

The racialist statisticians have shown by their own data the impact of better education and environment has an average minimum 10 to a maximum 20 point effect on IQ, which would close the gap between American blacks and whites. Also by their own data, the IQ impact of programs to improve those factors are strongest in childhood but diminish during adolescence. They could deny that adolescence is the time of individual awakening to cultural expectations, but it would be an absurd position. What they conjecture instead is that genetic phenotype asserts itself over environmental influence at puberty. Culture itself is presumed to be an extension of genetics, based on the mystical traits of DNA to control group behavior.

A far worse mistake is that some of the main advocates of genetic determination ascribe the total difference between average IQ of African and American blacks to racial interbreeding with whites. Because apparently no difference between African and American environment. Also, IQ is based upon a small number of genes which are recombined in a simple fashion. Factors like malnutrition which have been proven to have major effects on healthy development up to two generations later somehow fail to be considered in these studies.

Step2, it is impossible to tell whether Raimondo is "right about the mythology of racialists," since he never indentifies them or quotes them or responds to their specific claims.

In other words, he is engaged in a classic smear campaign. Which is pretty much what he's all about.

He is *so* like David Brock - another slime-master who I've had the misfortune to meet.

I note, by the way, that this little contretemps has spawned an ongoing controversy over at Taki's Magazine. I'll try to find some time to comment in detail. But, for the moment, I'll just note that I think Paul Gottfried, Marcus Epstein & Richard Spencer are beating Raimondo & Caleb Stegall all hollow.

Step 2,

Over the past year or so I have read a lot of stuff written by so-called "race realists". So while I'm not an expert (e.g. Steve Sailer is really the go to guy on these issues) I've learned a thing or two by reading these folks and when coupled with a decent background in math and statistics, I think it is fair to say the following:

1) This statement has no basis in fact:

"The racialist statisticians have shown by their own data the impact of better education and environment has an average minimum 10 to a maximum 20 point effect on IQ, which would close the gap between American blacks and whites."

I know of NOT A SINGLE STUDY that found such a dramatic impact due to "better education and environment". In fact, education seems to do very little for IQ, at best raising it a few points. Environment is similar, unless you are looking at extreme deprivation (i.e. malnutrition and/or violence).

2) This statement makes no sense:

"What they conjecture instead is that genetic phenotype asserts itself over environmental influence at puberty."

First of all, there is no such thing as "genetic phenotype". There are two concepts used in genetics, "genotype" and "phenotype" -- the first refers to your DNA (or more broadly, your inherited "instructions") and the second refers to the observable differences in an organism, some of which are influenced by the environment (e.g. the specific language we speak).

3) What race realists do say about factors that produce adolescent gains in IQ is that they don't hold up over time.

4) This statement is ridiculous, and is not a viewpoint shared by every race realist:

"Culture itself is presumed to be an extension of genetics, based on the mystical traits of DNA to control group behavior."

Someone like John Derbyshire would say "where does culture come from?" and he would answer his own question by claiming genetics. I find this question a fascinating one given evolution. Clearly genes played a role in shaping our early adaptation to the different environments we all encountered when pouring out of Africa. How those genes then shaped the development of our different cultures is a mystery at this point, but an endlessly interesting topic of speculation.

5) This is also hyperbole:

"A far worse mistake is that some of the main advocates of genetic determination ascribe the total difference between average IQ of African and American blacks to racial interbreeding with whites."

No smart race realist would ever claim genetics accounts for the "total difference" between the average IQs of different groups. We all acknowledge the role of environmental factors. It is our enemies on the Left (and sometimes on the anti-science Right) who seem to be unwilling to accept ANY role for genetic factors when attempting to understand IQ differences amongst racial groups.

You need to read this entire blog post, take two aspirin, and call me in the morning:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

As an aside, if I ever met Taki in person, I would be tempted to punch him in the face on behalf of David Frum, who is a scholar and a gentleman and ten times the intellectual Taki ever hoped to be. Taki's vitriol for Frum (and all of us neo-cons) is fascinating and probably explains why he lets a fool like Raimando write for his website. I just wish Larison and Roach would abandon him and write exclusively for AmCon, which also has issues with the neo-cons, but for the most part maintains a respectful disagreement over our ideas, not our personalities.

Not going to defend Taki, but he has assembled in Zmirak, Stegall and Larison a talented and engaging trio of Christian traditionalists well-worth reading.

Frum is a scholar and gentlemen, but, not an officer? Odd, given his enthusiasm for the "clarifying" aspects of modern warfare. Please note, he has never apologized for his prominent role in the ramp-up to Iraq, nor the malicious, mendacious, self-serving screed below. Quite a gentleman with a flair for "respectful disagreement."

"They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.

War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them."
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Well, I'll be darned. I've lost touch with the paleo world. I had no idea Caleb Stegall ended up at Taki's. I'll have to give that one some thought. I must admit to finding it surprising.

I thought I read recently that Stegall has a book coming out later this year, from ISI if memory serves. Don't remember the title or subject, however, and there's nothing listed on the ISI site. Perhaps I dreamed it...?

(e.g. Steve Sailer is really the go to guy on these issues)

This is a big part of the problem.

M.Z.,

While I don't agree with everything Sailer has to say about race and politics, are you suggesting he somehow distorts or misrepresents the data he presents to his readers? If not, then why is he "a big part of the problem"? As my response to Step2 demonstrates, there is a lot of ignorance when it comes to genetic and racial issues -- shouldn't we try and do better with respect to educating the public? As the kerfuffles over Larry Summers and James Watson demonstrate (or more importantly, the assumptions behind some of the provisions of "No Child Left Behind"), there are real world implications to the public's ignorance when it comes to science, genetics, the concept of IQ, statistical concepts like a normal distribution, etc.

Kevin,

I'd rather not rehash the debate over Frum's infamous article in "National Review". I think a case can be made that the article was fair and only expressed disdain for certain ideas. I'm sure you think differently. However, we are in total agreement that Daniel Larison is a first rate scholar and thinker. I was fortunate enough to treat him to lunch one day here in Chicago and I can report he is also charming and a great conversationalist in person.

Well, I'm waiting for Steve's commentary on the running exchange over at Taki's. I'm of the opinion that valid points have been made all around, though some parties have overstated their cases; but also that indirection is the imperative: the trick is to implement reforms that reduce the salience of these realities in everyday life.

there is a lot of ignorance when it comes to genetic and racial issues

Perhaps because it isn't very salient to developing public policy.

the assumptions behind some of the provisions of "No Child Left Behind")

Assumptions that everyone should be able to read at a 6th grade level, even black students? Perish the thought. A chart is available here for which I can't verify its accuracy, but it seems to be good enough. http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html
Interpreting the chart, we can conclude it would difficult to educate less than 2% of the population to the 6th grade level based solely on IQ.

That's a finely cherry-picke data point, MZ, but he did not say "every assumption" or "every provision," so your point is as irreleveant as your sarcasm is uncalled for. Actually, this reply of yours clarifies why you stand where you do on the IQ debate: you refuse to distinguish between statements about "many," and "every," wilfully conflating the latter for the former whenever you think a little righteous indignation is called for.

If you are going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, you could at least go to the trouble of pointing out how the assumption that I addressed was the weakest one in reference to applying IQ to NCLB.

M.Z.,

Here is Sailer himself on NCLB:

www.vdare.com/Sailer/070218_child.htm

The language he quotes from the law doesn't say anything about "6th grade level", instead, the law says every child should reach a "proficient level of academic achievement by 2014". As Steve explains, the problem enters in defining "proficient".

This is also a good introduction to the problems that crop up in real world situations when lawmakers (and bureaucrats) choose to ignore statistical data that demonstrates racial disparities:

www.vdare.com/sailer/zorro.htm

Is this information "salient" to developing public policy? As Sage says, sometimes yes, sometimes no. But it seems strange to ignore it all together or to condemn those who try to understand how this information might better inform policy.

He doesn't really address it though. Proficient is a mark on a test. Considering that we're defining minimal proficiency, the expectation that 100% would achieve the mark is not unwarranted. Relative positioning within the population set is just a silly discussion when what we are speaking of can easily be achieved according to the metric the folks who are defining the IQ debate are using. The whole discussion is like when omparing manfacturer A and B that it is relevant that one is within 5/1000 inch tolerance 99% of the time while the other is within 3/1000 inch toleration 99% of the time when our actual tolerance demanded is 1/8 inch.

M.Z.,

Again, it depends on what you mean by "minimal proficiency". To put it another way, given an average IQ of 100 in a particular population, it might be good to make sure that "minimal proficiency" corresponds with skills one would expect from someone with an IQ of 100. But even here, the problem is the bell curve -- there will be plenty of folks who are below average and we just designed a test that will be very difficult (by definition) for them to achieve proficiency in. Have the people who created NCLB standards asked themselves these questions? Has anyone figured out what we can expect academically from someone with an IQ of 80, 90, 100, etc.? These questions are why this data is relevant.

No it really doesn't until we get to really low IQs. Those are addressed by allowing schools to exclude up to 5% of students from testing, which NCLB does. This should eliminate anyone with an IQ under 65, probably more than that due to other considerations of accomodating students outside the school systems. This is not even taking into consideration self-selection factors like holding students back. Once you get to a 74 IQ, you should be trainable beyond an 8th grade education. Even 60 IQ and above are trainable to between the 6th and 8th grade. (See link above) NCLB is primarily targeted to standards enforcement between 3rd and 8th grade.

We aren't concerned about the speed of acquisition here. (Well, students are limited to completing 3-8th grade in 10 years, nothing grossly egregious.) We are concerned with displacement. Relative measures of acceleration are not particularly valuable once we've established that the pool has the acceleration potential (IQ) to accomodate the distance needed.

"Proficiency," as used in the NCLB, is a widely used technical term in education testing, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and it has a quite specific meaning that might not be obvious to those not familiar with the field. It's the second highest level of achievement, behind only "Advanced," and ahead of Basic and Below Basic (and sometimes Far Below Basic).

Currently, about 30% of students on the federal NAEP test score Proficient or Advanced. The NCLB, however, tells states to make up their own tests, so some states have responded, unsurprisingly, by debauching their tests and lowering "Proficiency" to the equivalent of "Below Basic" on the NAEP.

It's all just a Potemkin Village.

Many states have indeed obfuscated. That said, proficiency was not intended as a relativistic mark. Indeed if it were, it would make NCLB nonsense. It is an identified mark on a test. IQ doesn't suggest why upwards of 2/3rds of a broad sample of students with varying IQs aren't proficient at what IQ theory suggests should be achievable for someone with an IQ over 60.

I find the entire argument frustrating. The issues are, to me, quite simple, but people get all worked up over them.

Whites are, on average, smarter than blacks.
Asians are, on average, smarter than whites.
Jews from Germany are, on average, smarter than everyone else.

And yet, the smartest black is smarter than the average German Jew.

And yet again, the difference between the smartest and dumbest of a given "race" dwarfs by an order of magnitude the difference between the average of any two races.

And yetter still, the test-taking ability of other people has absolutely no effect on a person's ability to take a test; the skin color of those people, even less.

And I wish the liberal racialists would quit pretending it did.

All:

I was going to delete this post, because my remarks about Justin Raimondo, however honest, were extremely rude and intemperate.

But there have been some good comments, so I guess I'll just leave it up, and suffer the embarassment of having behaved badly.