Harvard study provokes outrage

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
21

<p>

</p>

<p>Please, sesomenza. Tell me which ones you think are racist or hurtful. I would like to know that you’re not just BSing. I doubt there are any facts that you actually can point to to show that this doctoral dissertation is “hurtful” (I’m 99.99999% sure you’re just making up the fact that you have evidence because you have none).</p>

<p>Here is an incomplete list of his cited sources:</p>

<p>APA
Demography Journal
Journal of Genetic Psychology
American Economic Review
Journal of Economic Literature
Nature Magazine
Psychological Review
Journal of American Medical Association
Journal of Political Economy
NeuroImage
International Journal of Psychology
Applied Developmental Science</p>

<p>These are all verified, correct sources, all from the first few pages of his works cited.</p>

<p>Low intelligence = Government burden. If you disagree, you need to learn basic reasoning skills.</p>

<p>btw your fact on welfare is utter, absolute, and total crap. The Hispanic welfare rate is 15.7% (out of everyone), which makes sense because that’s the percentage of people in the US that are Hispanic roughly. However, the rate for first-gen immigrants is exponentially higher. The White welfare rate is 38%, but they make up 64% of the US population roughly. Asians (like myself) are 4% of the US population, but have an about 2% welfare rate. Please fact-check before you post loads of falsehoods.</p>

<p>He just left the Heritage Foundation because character assassins ruined his reputation by citing this paper, not because he thought it wasn’t conservative enough or anything. These character assassins published this paper online to lure and spark outrage and anger for his political incorrectness.</p>

<p>IMHO, all big media corporations (ie Fox, NBC, etc.) are massive propaganda machines. But that depends who you’re talking to.</p>

<p>Yeah, Halogen, because I would totally publish my Harvard dissertation to the internet and dedicate it to pleasing other people. This paper was barely known by anyone until recently, when some character assassin tried to attack his reputation by pointing out this paper after reading his article about amnesty (pretty good read, he puts the price tag of amnesty at 6.3 trillion dollars). And just because some “evil” (subjective, as always) people will be pleased by his argument does not make it invalid.</p>

<p>I agree that group characteristics should not be used to judge individuals. The paper argues for allowing higher intelligence immigrant individuals to enter the United States.</p>

22

<p>Tomatox: Your logic and reaction is laughable and predictable. All I can say is that 15.7% is less than 38%. (Your words not mine). You don’t like my lesson is statistics? Then consider it a lesson in manipulation. Statistics can lead to anywhere that it is led. You’ve just got the Richwine treatment? How do you like it? Now do you understand the weakness imprecision. BTW he was a coauthor of a similar report for the Heritage Foundation, coincidently published to support recent anti-immigration legislation. All we know is that he resigned. Why? I don’t know and either do you. But again, I think it’s logical to follow the money. Also do you want me do post racist and hateful race studies. I’m sure I can find plenty from the WWII era and before. Is that what you are asking for? No response is necessary. I’ll assume the answer is no.</p>

23

<p>The problem only exists if he insinuates that whites are better than blacks/hispanics based on these IQ scores, and I am unable to judge that for myself right now because I have no access to a computer at the moment.</p>

24

<p>^From what I’ve gleaned, it seems he insinuates people with lower IQ’s shouldn’t be allowed in the US, but I could be wrong.</p>

25

<p>So you can be a domestic dumb*** but not a foreign one…?</p>

26

<p>Guess so. Like I said in post #2, most Americans can’t even pass the citizenship test that immigrants have to pass in order to become a citizen…</p>

27

<p>sosmenza, you can’t even read facts correctly. 15% of those of welfare as Hispanic and 38% of those on welfare are whites. 64% of America is white and 15% of America is Hispanic. Hispanics have a higher per-capita rate of welfare than whites do, unless you want to provide different facts. This is not part of my argument, it’s just a rebuttal to yours.</p>

<p>He resigned because people didn’t like his political incorrectness. </p>

<p>Sosomenza, what you said in your last sentence has no relevancy to Jason Richwine’s study whatsoever. Find me something in his study with a citation from WW2 and before.</p>

<p>Jason Richwine doesn’t insinuate that anyone is “better” or “worse,” he’s insinuating that certain immigrants who have low intelligence rates may cause severe socioeconomic troubles for the United States, both in educational and social factors, by lowering the overall intelligence of citizens in the United States. The low intelligence rates for natural-born citizens is a myth that can be dispelled by the Flynn Effect, in ways that can’t be totally accounted for the fact that some people don’t know the parts of the Constitution</p>

28

<p>

Based on that, I don’t think you read this:

Specifically:

Specifically:

Next point:

I said:

Here’s how the logic works:</p>

<p>*E<a href=“%5Bi%5Dx%5B/i%5D”>/i</a> := “Believing x and acting consistently with it is evil.”</p>

<p>*P<a href=“%5Bi%5Dx%5B/i%5D”>/i</a> := “It is good (implying not evil) for x to happen.”</p>

<p>*B<a href=“%5Bi%5Dx%5B/i%5D”>/i</a> := “x is a big phenomenon.”</p>

<p>*S<a href=“%5Bi%5Dx%5B/i%5D,%20%5Bi%5Dy%5B/i%5D”>/i</a> := “*B<a href=”%5Bi%5Dx%5B/i%5D">/i</a> ⇒ *P<a href=“%5Bi%5Dy%5B/i%5D”>/i</a>."</p>

<p>(r ∧ *B<a href=“%5Bi%5Dr%5B/i%5D”>/i</a> ∧ E<a href=“%5Bi%5DP%5B/i%5D(%5Bi%5Dp%5B/i%5D)”>/i</a>) ⇒ ¬S<a href=“%5Bi%5Dr%5B/i%5D,%20%5Bi%5Dp%5B/i%5D”>/i</a>.</p>

<p>It’s a form of a [reduction</a> to absurdity](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum]reduction”>Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia) argument that uses Richwine’s dissertation (depending on how convincing it is) to criticize the philosophy that an immigration policy should be used to maintain an orderly society or a healthy economy. It’s from the perspective of someone who believes that it’s evil to claim sovereignty over an enormous plot of land, utilize only a fraction of it, and to use aptitude tests to decide who gets to live in any part of the land.</p>

29

<p>Halogen, either I’m not following your plethora of symbols, or you’re not understanding the meaning of this dissertation. Jason Richwine is arguing for an increase immigration of high-intelligence immigrants while a decrease in low-intelligence immigration.</p>

30

<p>So Hispanic is a race now?</p>

31

<p>It is an ethnicity. But only petty nitpickers constantly emphasize at the difference.</p>

32

<p>

Not sure what I can do for you then, other than just say that my argument isn’t an attempt to disprove the dissertation; it’s a way of saying that only someone with an evil philosophy can agree with both the dissertation and the idea that immigration should be controlled to benefit society or the economy. That’s it. Just a conclusion I found that’s worth stating because I find it interesting and I’d also find interesting the perspective of someone who understands the argument (which you don’t). I’m not saying anything about how convincing the research is.</p>

33

<p>

[Here</a> you go](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols]Here”>List of logic symbols - Wikipedia).</p>

<p>I read the dissertation as an argument that:</p>

<ol>
<li>Immigration of high-intelligence immigrants and a decrease in low-intelligence immigration would benefit national order and the economy.</li>
<li>Controlling immigration would therefore benefit national order and the economy.</li>
</ol>

<p>I give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to advocacy, meaning I give him the benefit of doubting that he actually advocates controlling immigration for that purpose (which I believe would be evil). Academic research like this can end up going places that are pretty far from people’s own beliefs.</p>

34

<p>The APA already called out various proponents of the ‘racial causation’ of intelligence hypothesis. Look up its report “Intelligence: Knowns and Unkowns.” The report states, rather diplomatically, that there is no evidence for this theory, and that all evidence points to other factors as the substantive ones. While Dr. Richwine’s writing seems academically sound, it reaches a conclusion that is worrisome. Also, the 6,300,000 USD pricetag for amnesty is lunacy. Just look at the CBO’s numbers. Practically all major political players have rejected the Heritage report.</p>

35

<p>“But only petty nitpickers…”</p>

<p>I might normally agree (not really…well maybe the constantly part…) but it seems this thread is about heritable or genetic differences. Wouldn’t that make the difference more than petty?</p>

36

<p>This evening I’ve read several articles on Richwine. His dissertation did earn him a Harvard Ph.D. His dissertation is basically a cut and piece job loosely tying old research. People are still trying to figure out if he performed any original research of his own. My opinion is that he got fast and free with the dissertation facts and got away with it. He tried to do the same with Heritage Foundation research and was taken to the woodshed, not for racist ideas, but for grossly overestimating the cost of immigration by some 500%. Heritage can handle derision, but it can’t handle inaccuracy. Anyway his reputation is damaged because of faulty conclusions in regards to $$ estimates. But it makes one wonder what else did he lie about? The next one to the woodshed will be Harvard for handing out a doctorate for such weak work.</p>

37

<p>The pursuit of truth is all that maters. Throughout history people of science have been persecuted for presenting facts that go against the prevailing mindset.</p>

<p>If the study has technical flaws, no doubt his peers will take him to task. I’d venture to say 99% of those who are calling for his head are not intellectually equipped to evaluate the study.</p>

38

<p>Look! A dissertation for the white supremacist groups, most of whom would not be able to read it. Too bad for Richwine that his best audience is completely illiterate.</p>

<p>I have to say, that while I don’t like it when people go after Asians on this site, the few Asian posters on this thread are doing for the Asian reputation what David Duke did for the reputation of whites in the south.</p>

<p>There are questions about IQ tests and the inherent racism and classism in the way they are given, presented and scored. They were originally developed and tested on white middle class. They seem to be good at differentiating between white middle class intellects.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: white, extremely high IQ family here. WE test well. None of us think this means anything other than that we test well. That and $5 will get you a latte.</p>

<p>carry on, but think about how stupid you sound when you defend a racist paper. Look up Mark Twain on statistics. You seem to be falling into that groove.</p>

39

<p>

You happen to be saying nothing at all. I really don’t see what you’re actually trying to say through this entire thread, except for your last two posts.</p>

<p>@Rubbish I do agree than 6.3 trillion is somewhat absurd, but that is completely and totally impertinent to the object of this thread. Also, he is not automatically implying that all Latinos inherit low IQs. That is far from the point. If you believe this, you are absurd and do not understand this paper at all. Few people who have commented in this thread have probably read more than 20 pages. On page 67, he discusses the cause of the low IQs of immigrants. He includes genetics as one possible explanation but is not the entire explanation.</p>

<p>To me, “racist” is a meaningless word, like “thinking outside the box” or “different.”</p>

<p>@sosomenza, I’m afraid you do not understand the basic tenets of a dissertation.</p>

<p>poetgrl, but aha – there you go again with those dreaded ad-hominem attacks. I could call you “middle class scoundrel” or “servant woman” or the like all day. Your scornful and cynical attitude is astounding and unfounded. The claim that IQ tests are biased stems from the fact that some groups perform more poorly than others on them. But the fact that some groups perform more poorly than others on IQ tests stems from the fact that they are biased. Make sense to me.</p>

40

<p>tomato, you can call me whatever you want. None of what you said applies to me, particularly that I am not in the middle class by anyone’s definition. My scornful and cynical attitude comes from having a strong understanding of history, racism and the love the Nazi’s had of “great race” theories.</p>

<p>Carry on. You sound like a racist pig to me. And, here in the US, racist is actually not a meaningless term. Fortunately, most of us at the top find your kind of thinking to be abhorrent.</p>