We pretend that results-based testing is a bad thing for an emergency responder's job, while celebrating it on the basketball court or football field.

Which is more important?

People are inherently schizophrenic.

Yes, i agree with you, Amy Alkon. people should be given jobs based on their potential ability to do the job required. the blacks and other ethnic minorities should understand that not all the jobs or promotion that they applied for is suitable for them or should be automatically given to them. that would teach the ethnic minorities good life no longer comes on a platter.

Alternatively, let's carry affirmative action through to its logical conclusion: let's see proportional representation of short, white people in the starting lineup of every professional basketball team! If anyone claims that they are short, you can always outlaw height measurements.

If you eliminate affirmative action, what do you do about the problems arising from differences in innate abilities? Just as blacks have an advantage in athletics, so do whites and asians in intellectual endeavors. Attempts to deny these differences are futile, but attempts to acknowledge and deal with them create political firestorms.

We pretend that results-based testing is a bad thing for an emergency responder's job, while celebrating it on the basketball court or football field.

Hard to add anything on this. I wonder how many deaths will it takes to change this perception of affirmative action.

Not a well written article as:

"The justices, after meeting privately, announced they had voted to hear two cases that concern the lingering role of race in American life." Was this private meeting somehow different from how they normally decide to hear cases? If so, why meet privately. If not, why mention the private nature because it makes it seem as though the privacy was important and related to politics.

Not a well written article because Obama, in his race speech said: And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. So I honestly don't know how Barak Obama himself feels about this issue, though I think I do know how many liberals and conservatives *think* they know where he or his cabinet or Supreme Court appointments or policies would lead. But his speech could be said (and was interpreted for a small time after he gave it) to indicate that Obama might be okay with rulings that helped remove what he sees as legitimate complaints and legitimate criticisms.

However, I have to give the LA Times and David Savage major props for posting Savage's email address at the end of the article.

Both are important.

Yep. But CNN doesn't provide this and I wish they would and neither does my local rag, the AZ Republic (and when I say rag, I am doing rags a disservice.)

Shortly after the death of Jett Travolta, they had an article about what it means emotionally for parents to lose a child and how that impacts their lives. And it was a well done article, and I would have liked to get a hold of the reporter and point out to her that the courts inflict this everyday in custody disputes, and when we don't have laws and policies that favor shared parenting as the rebuttable default, we never consider what happens to the non-custodial parent. And as her article showed, the impacts are quite real and devastating. So I was reacting to that.

Anyway, we'll see what happens in April. I find it amusing/interesting/telling how so many liberals have run from "a color-blind" society and at the same time so many conservatives have run to it. I'd like to think I'm a liberal who stayed with it.

The difference treatment for sports is interesting. It's one area where elitism is acceptable. Why? Perhaps because it's an area where spectators can identify with players - at least, to support them; no-one is spectating on firefighters or academics.

We (the UK) have a TV program called "Strictly Come Dancing" which is an elimination dance competition between pro-am couples. There is a panel of judges and the audience can phone in their votes. There was a brouhaha recently because one competitor, John Sergeant, was a lousy dancer, but the public liked him. He eventually opted out because he was aware that he was blocking far better dancers.

It always annoys me in these TV shows, when a judge makes a criticism of a competitor, and the studio audience boos the judge. It's as if merely trying is good enough, actual achievement is not required. Ah shit, just give 'em all 10 points.

Not that it matters, but "they" above was CNN, and Madison Park's article is here.

(Try googling for "Madison Park", her parents gave her an awesome name to resist Google with, other great names to fight against search engine oppression might be, "Jefferson Building" or "John Times Square.")

It's funny that you were on a plane, Amy. It's one of those situations where competence is the only thing that matters. So, you know, you don't crash.

The same thing goes for firefighters. I want the strongest, smartest, most capable firefighters saving me from a burning building. I'm pretty sure I'd be pissed off if I died because of civic politics.

I'm pretty sure I'd be pissed off if I died because of civic politics.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be anything but dead.

But your point is taken.

Affirmative section has nothing to do with "fairness" or "a level playing field". It is all about power & privilege for minorities, in exactly the same way as segregation was all about power & privilege for whites.

Segregation in the pre-Civil Rights South wasn't just an expression of white racism or a holdover from slavery. It was very functional: it kept all the goodies & all the power in the hands of white folks. Affirmative action serves the same function for racial minorities & women. If 70 % of university physics professors are men, that is an outrage. If 90 % of public school teachers are women, that keeps all the bargaining power in the hands of the feminazis in the Teacher's Unions, which is just the way they like it. Southern whites did not give up their privileges voluntarily. Ike had to sic the National Guard on them. The beneficiaries of affirmative action have no intention of giving up either. Do you really think President Obama will force them to?

If you eliminate affirmative action, what do you do about the problems arising from differences in innate abilities? Just as blacks have an advantage in athletics, so do whites and asians in intellectual endeavors.

Innate!? Evidence please.

So, if the civil service test was biased against minorities and they did away with it, what about the physical fitness requirements? They are no doubt biased against lazy fatasses! They should be done away with too. We'd hate to stack the fire department with people who can actually walk a flight of stairs, after all.

Amy, I was lucky enough to have taken an economics class from Thomas Sowell while an undergraduate at UCLA (many years ago, when he was truly a voice in the wilderness). He opened my eyes and my mind, and had perhaps more impact on my thinking and world-view than any other person. Obama should seek his counsel, in my opinion.

I wrote: "If you eliminate affirmative action, what do you do about the problems arising from differences in innate abilities? Just as blacks have an advantage in athletics, so do whites and asians in intellectual endeavors."

Shawn asked: "Innate!? Evidence please."

Just enter "racial iq differences" into Google. The first link will do as well as any. The salient bit:

"The BELL CURVE for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the BELL CURVE for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks."

There is massive evidence from numerous studies that this is true. There is a lot of hand-waving and denial by people who don't want it to be true, but no fact-based refutation.

There is more from other sources:: the IQ of 85 is for American blacks, most of whom have a good bit of non-black ancestry. The average IQ in black Africa is 70. While some of the difference may be due to nutritional problems, most of it is genetic. This explains many the failures in attempting to introduce technology to Africa. We may finally be able to get Africa on its feet when people base their attempts to help on facts rather than wishful thinking.

IQ carries with it an inherent cultural bias.

There have been no studies that show an effective difference in intelligence when controlled for cultural factors.

The Bell Curve (I presume we're talking about the same book) was not a scholarly study in that respect.

If the education system were to focus on education, and cultural stigma against black educational excellence were successfully battled, the variance would disappear in a generation.

"IQ carries with it an inherent cultural bias".

No. This is a common misconception. However, numerous studies have used methods that are culturally neutral. Here is a very simplistic example that nonetheless produces good results: you are read numbers of increasing length, one digit at a time. After the number has been read, you must repeat the digits in reverse order. This works with anyone who has learned to use arabic numbers.

All of the reasonable IQ tests produce very similar results. By "reasonable" I mean any test that does not test knowledge but the ability to do abstract reasoning.

But the ability to do abstract reasoning IS culturally biased. It's hardly surprising that people in a subsistence culture (most of Africa, for instance) who dedicate the bulk of their time to "don't become lion chow" aren't going to be focused on more abstract thoughts involving numbers.

And to bring that comparison home (so to speak), in subcultures where education is vilified it should not be surprising to find a distinct lack of abstract reasoning. If you train people to be stupid, they won't disappoint.

Besides, how can you explain people like Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Clarence Page, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, etc.? There's far too many of them to say that they are all outliers. I find it very difficult to believe that these men (who would qualify as 4-5 SD above mean if we choose mean at 100) have all risen to prominence from a group that is genetically predisposed to be so far below the mean.

Simply - there are far too many examples of black intellectual excellence to be dismissed as outliers from a genetically substandard population.

"...how can you explain people like Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Clarence Page, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, etc.?"

Surely that is obvious? We are speaking of averages. There is a huge variance in each group: people with lower IQs and people with higher IQs. A group with an lower IQ average will have fewer highly intelligent members. Not zero - just fewer.

"But the ability to do abstract reasoning IS culturally biased."

That is easy to say, but it is wrong and you will be unable to find any scientific reference saying otherwise. Abstract thinking is as much an innate human ability as walking. It may be used in different ways on the African savanna than in the chemistry lab, but the basic mental capability is the same.

And here we go with an attempt at outcome-based results.

Count the NFL running backs.

Now, tell me how an obvious genetic feature in these people didn't convey an advantage that lets them succeed in that job.

Then, tell me why you might think musculature is all that is inherited.

Again: people are inherently schizophrenic. They will note that gender identity is not a choice, then claim that ethnic groups aren't different between the ears.

-----

Humans are not immune to or exempt from the laws of genetics. What group breeds for intelligence?

Maybe I can address this in a less aggressive way.

When the parents are smart, we expect their girl to be smart.

Now, be my guest to suggest that groups of people who select for brains produce children of inferior intelligence.

Also - be astute about this. No person must be a genius first to have individual rights and be treated fairly. Just as somebody will be smarter than me, somebody has to be dumber. That doesn't mean they are less of a person.

It means that they will top out at some level lower than other people. That's called, "life", and it can't be changed by law or rule.

Radwaste: What group breeds for intelligence?

That's one of the effects of the universities.

brian: But the ability to do abstract reasoning IS culturally biased.

You are explaining how blacks have low IQs, not that they don't.

There have been no studies that show an effective difference in intelligence when controlled for cultural factors.

No studies that show is not the same as studies that show not.

Excuse the English of that last sentence - the ability to write is alcoholically biased. Perhaps this is clearer:

No studies that show X is not the same as studies that show not X.

Norman, I was saying that as a way of pointing to the weakness of the information you presented. The relevant part of that sentence is when controlled for cultural factors.

You are free to posit that "thug life" is a genetic predisposition for blacks, but that's a tough row to hoe. Thomas Sowell makes a much more compelling argument (and that's all it is, as it is not backed up by anything but historical analysis) that black intellectual failure is a direct descendant of the "redneck" culture that former slaves inherited from their Scottish owners. Prior to emancipation, there were freed blacks in the North that were intellectually equal to their white peers. Suddenly, that changed when large numbers of newly emancipated slaves migrated north to get away from the institutionalized slavery in the south. Needless to say, these people were intentionally uneducated. See Black Rednecks and White Liberals for more.

So far as what group breeds for intelligence, the answer is "none". And the intellectual strength of the parents might be a useful indicator of potential in offspring, but is by no means a guarantee. I've seen beautiful people with ugly babies, and smart people with dim children.

Oh, and on the "studies show not X" thing.

It's mathematically impossible to prove a negative. The best you could hope for is "studies thus far have shown no statistically significant causal link between Y and X".

"The BELL CURVE for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the BELL CURVE for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks."

There is massive evidence from numerous studies that this is true. There is a lot of hand-waving and denial by people who don't want it to be true, but no fact-based refutation.

Let me try this question again: Innate!? Evidence please.

I'm not disputing the fact that American blacks have lower IQ scores. I assumed they did. I'm disputing whether what IQ tests measure is 100% innate. My guess is that it's not.

I'm also not disputing the basic premise that Radwaste is arguing from: that there probably are statistical genetic differences between American blacks and whites in many areas other than skin color. Intelligence may be one of them, but I'm not going to say it is one of them until I see actual evidence. And when I think about how nearly impossible it is to control for all of the relevant factors in a study that would try answer this, I don't expect to see that evidence in my lifetime - unless perhaps it comes from a better understanding of direct causal mechanisms.

On top of that American black, American white and intelligence are all very vague terms. Frankly, one of the mysteries to me of affirmative action is why anyone can't just claim to be a minority. Where's the definition?

All that being said, to me none of this is relevant to the original complaint. Affirmative action is evil and the only criterion for whether the test should be allowed is whether it sorts the qualified from the unqualified.

"... blacks have an advantage in athletics..."

Yes, I often think of the guy who played Urkel as an example of that truth.
Or Al Roker.
Star Jones.

Joe Montana? Pfft. Just another wimpy white boy.

Our local paper does a month-long daily blurb on noteworthy African-Americans during February (Black History Month). I read the blurbs last year and every one of them was about a dancer, musician, athlete, or actor.

Not a single blurb was about a noteworthy African-American writer, scientist, or businessman.

bradley13@1:24 PM...

"Abstract thinking is as much an innate human ability as walking."

There's a famous story of Picasso being taken to see the cave art at Lascaux, and emerging shocked and declaring "we have invented nothing" ("we" being 20th century artists). Our Cro-Magnon ancestors were capable of very sophisticated thinking indeed, and they left irrefutable evidence of it behind.

I personally love the "corrected for cultural factors" thing, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Plainly, people as ethnic groups have huge differences, more than skin deep. For instance, Zuni indians, split by the Gadsden Purchase, have the highest diabetes rate in humanity in the USA, where their diet was changed by American fast-food and social support programs; their poor Mexican cousins have no such affliction on traditional diet. Africans have a markedly higher incidence of sickle-cell anemia (since postulated as a developed defense against malaria).

If you want to claim that differences do NOT include mental abilities, it seems that you have the burden of proof.

Keep in mind the studies Amy has unearthed, showing things like the math aptitudes in the USA w/r/t gender. This is not simple. You can cite a hundred individual examples of genius among any tribe over the centuries. This doesn't mean the bulk of them don't/didn't drool on themselves.

Consider the whole of human history. Celestial navigation and astronomy were advanced by slave-owning societies worldwide before the thousand-year religious blight in Europe. Tribes everywhere developed defenses largely shaped by the environment. "Vertical" development and market communication makes a lot of small minds in collaboration into a few great ones, building the illusion of great wit in walls of flat-screen TVs and iPods.

Hmm. Another "cultural factor".

Are the millions in southern Africa, killing each other with machetes over tribal identity, just as they have for millennia, "smart"? How about those who think AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin girl? How about Arabs, who cannot figure out that if you fire rockets at Israel, you get bombs back?

Does "smart" have to come from somewhere else?

Rad, you've thrown so much straw in the air I don't know where to begin.

The Arab world was the hub of everything prior to the rise of Muhammad. Everything since then has been in stasis. Are you telling me that Arabs have a genetic proclivity to follow suicide cults?

Steel was being made in Africa a thousand years before Europeans stopped living in piles of their own shit.

If you want to know what has led to the prosperity that the Western world enjoys, you need look no further than Jesus Christ and English Common Law.

If you want to go pointing out all the wonderful un-Christian things that the colonists did, go right ahead. The concepts underlying both Christianity and English Common Law are the same - that all men are equal before God and the law.

Look to the places where neither Augustine nor Locke ever held sway, and you will find people wallowing in filth.

Oh, and the "controlling for cultural factors" thing is quite simple: Eliminate those who have a cultural aversion to education from your survey sample. Are you going to argue that there is an innate genetic proclivity AGAINST organized education present in the black genome?

People ask "why do Asians do so well in school". I can tell you why. When I was goofing off, most of the Vietnamese kids in college were hitting the books. The ones that didn't tended to fail as much as the white kids that fucked off.

Those kids that did well did so because their parents demanded it of them.

There is a direct link between perceived intelligence of a child and the demands of the parents.

When this factor is controlled for, I suspect you'll find a very small difference in the mean intelligence.

How about Arabs, who cannot figure out that if you fire rockets at Israel, you get bombs back?

This one deserves its own response.

Hamas is quite aware that Israel will retaliate - which is why they spend so much time putting women and children in buildings that they have been warned are targets, and why they launch their rockets and mortars from hospitals and schoolyards.

They know that Israel is loath to attack these targets because the world is against them, and Hamas has a PR agency that would make Madison Avenue blush.

Hamas launches a rocket into an Israeli school, nobody says anything about the dead kids. Israel retaliates, and all you see is pictures of dead and mutilated kids and calls from the UN to stop the carnage.

So no, Arabs aren't stupid. They just don't have the same priorities as you and me.

Brian: When this factor is controlled for, I suspect you'll find a very small difference in the mean intelligence.

You seem to be predicting the results of research that has not been done. How exactly do you control for cultural factors? If you control for everything, would dogs have an IQ of 100?

This reminds me of students (I work in in a university) who get extra time in exams for medical conditions etc. Some of them seem to have the idea that if they get enough allowances they will pass the course. But you don't show that you are capable of something, by presenting reasons - however valid - for why you can't do it.

Norman, it's a matter of assigning causality. I just happen to think you've got yours backwards, and you're trying to use the existence of other differences to bolster your position.

The nut of the question is this: Does stupidity cause thuggishness, or vice-versa?

Once you've answered that question (and nobody's tried to that I can see) then you can move on to determining whether or not there is a genetic basis to either thuggishness or stupidity.

It's really the same argument that some use to excuse inner-city crime. We're told that poverty causes hopelessness, which causes crime. But there are plenty of places where people are poor and hopeless, and they don't prey on their neighbors. Ought we then accept an argument that blacks are genetically predisposed to criminality as well?

Until you can determine the genesis of the cultural aversion to education found in certain black subcommunities, then it's really pointless to argue that the existence of such communities proves that blacks are genetically inferior in terms of intellect.

I see two possibilities.

1. There is an innate difference among races and between genders, therefore Affirmative
Action is wrongly causing unworthy people to be hired and promoted.

2. There is no innate difference among races and between genders, therefore Affirmative Action is unnessary.

Either way, it is discrimination, which is wrong.

Brian- the point I am trying, unsuccessfully, to make is that more than once you have quoted the results of research which you say has not yet been done. The only position I'm taking is that you are making unwarranted assumptions.

They may be true, or they may not, but according to you we don't know, so you can't use them to bolster any position.

Norman -

You have a reading comprehension problem?

I've not quoted the results of research that did not happen.

I've stated (quite bluntly, I thought) that the research you were referencing was bullshit on stilts.

Just like every study done that "proves" that video games make children violent, every study that you've referenced was fundamentally flawed.

What I've stated, perhaps too eloquently to get past your preconceived notions is this:

Until a properly controlled study has been done, the information you have presented illuminates nothing.

brian - I've stated (quite bluntly, I thought) that the research you were referencing was bullshit on stilts. [...] every study that you've referenced was fundamentally flawed.

What research would that be? I have not referenced a single study above. In that sense, yes, every study that I've referenced was fundamentally flawed.