http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
And yet Jewish americans have made a smaller percnetage of the top students, national merit scholars and yet their enrollment has gone up 2.5x
Your arugment doens’t make sense. It’s laughable the illogical rounds people are making to justify quotas for asians but not for jews
“Aside from all the scientific literature it strains credibility to believe that all other traits are clearly heritable such as eye color, height, athletic ability , body build etc etc but that the most important human trait is not. So then human evolution is not subject to natural selection? Are you really taking that position?”
Well evolution has to do with survival and adaptability, which may not strongly correlate with intelligence. It’s possible the shrewdest species survive as opposed to the smartest, if you will.
Intelligence varies from individual to individual. Within all ethnic groups.
@thelonliestmonk excellent point about survival of the fittest…definitely not just intelligence, especially in the traditional sense that relates to college admissions.
@OHMomof2 of course intelligence varies from individual to individual…my point was in response to the poster saying certain ethnic groups are more intelligent hereditarily than others…I was saying that even if someone is born with lesser intelligence because they are from the “lesser” intelligent ethnic group it doesn’t mean they cannot surpass someone intellectually who might be born with “more” intelligence from the more intelligent ethnic group. Just like someone who is born more athletically talented than someone else might not necessarily end up being the better athlete. There are so many variable that can impact where we all end up in our abilities.
I would agree generally with the last series of posts. Obviously intelligence within a group tells you nothing about the individual. However the overall achievement of a group of people whose ancestors were literate for 2000-3000 years is vastly different from a group of people who never progressed on their own from the stone age. This fact leads to rather uncomfortable outcomes for which there are no perfect solutions. However it does no one any good to pretend all groups of people have equal abilities in anything. The longitudinal twin studies have proven over and over that genetics accounts for 60-80% of intelligence.
It doesn’t matter how literate my great, great, great, great grandmother was, it doesn’t affect me. My mom took me to the library a lot when I was little, though. That helped me - not my intelligence - just my reading.
Nature and nurture.
I dispute the very existence of such “lesser” intelligent ethnic groups, @collegemomjam .
I have “lesser” in quotes because that’s what the earlier poster was claiming…that it’s genetic by ethnic group. Not sure I agree either, although he claims it’s been proven. And as someone already pointed out, from a survival of the fittest standpoint, there are other factors other than intelligence that might make someone more survivable than others.
Honestly, as an admissions counselor I sometimes find it frustrating that other factors other than intelligence often trump intelligence…like money, looks, connections, etc. A lot of the kids landing the great jobs after college are attractive and connected. Many of them quite intelligent, but that might not be what got them the job vs. someone with equal or more intelligence.
I guess that’s good news for the students that aren’t getting into the most elite schools…there are other factors that might help you land that great Wall St. job. A friend of mine is high up at one of the big banks and he says when all is said and done, they hire the people that they want to work with all day and it’s not so much about GPA or resume …that may help you get the interview but after that, it’s all about “fit”.
I think as a society we need to make “science” and other academic areas more “sexy”…
My very favorite commercial is the GE commercial with that girl Molly…they show her growing up and how she designs all of these contraptions and ends up being an engineer or something at GE…and how proud she is of herself for it. We need more of that in this country because right now I feel like our youth is more impressed with the Kardashians than the Molly’s that work at GE.
Well @collegemomjam it’s easy enough to find out if it’s accepted science or not. No need to take some random CC poster’s word for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Genetics_of_race_and_intelligence has links to several primary academic sources.
@OHMomof2 I’m really not sure what your point is. My point is simply that there are so many variables that we cannot just point to race/ethnicity.
You’re note to me and quoting me with the following:
I dispute the very existence of such “lesser” intelligent ethnic groups, @collegemomjam .
Seems to completely disregard my point and take what I was saying out of context. We can sit here and debate all daylong if intelligence is inherited, but that’s not at least what I have been trying to say and I certainly wasn’t saying I think there are these cut and dry “lesser” intelligent ethnic groups and that you are predestined based on your genetics. I am saying the complete opposite…we all take what we were born with (intelligence, physical ability, whatever) as far as we can using or not using the resources available to us, some of it we can control, and some of it we cannot.
At the end of the day, I don’t think there is anything wrong with society trying to create opportunities to those less fortunate and in order to do so some sweeping generalizations must be made and that will inevitably create debates like those discussed on this thread. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to help those that need and want the help.
The link in the above post provides the clear answer if you read the next section. The data about the corn stalk heights is very clear. Keep in mind that the IQ/ test score gaps stubbornly remains even in the wealthiest neighborhoods and with total privledge though the scores/IQs are higher for all groups. This sience is settled. G or IQ is roughly 60-80% based on genetics for children of similar backgrounds. This of course means that 20-40% is based on other factors. This is not contraversial and well understood in most HSs in America.
Arriving here late… There are no “lesser” intelligent ethnic groups, just lesser intelligent individuals in every ethnic group. An example of less intelligent individuals can be those insisting of building the same strawman over and over again for example.
So sure, look at particular groups and you will find differences in IQ distribution (oftentimes inmense). But taking that data and running with it is either a sign of lazy thinking AND/OR lacking the capacity to do higher level thinking (or looking deeper into a problem).
Just scratching the surface with an example:
Individuals and groups fight for dominance by passing knowledge to younger generations. Take the British creating the prep school in medieval times for selected high status children so they dominate over common children. IQ test would reveal that as a group they were much smarter but they were cheating as that education was only available to a select few… That legacy continues to this day, hence our fascination with college rankings, boards such as this one and fantastic tales such as the “Harry Potter” sensation. Dominance in education follows power struggles (including colonial patterns…) with much superior institutions belonging to whoever is in power. This can be seen in whole nations, cities, zip codes, race, wealth, fame, I could go on and on…
Again I was just scratching the surface, my point is that IQ between groups correlates with education (passing knowledge to younger generations) which correlates with status. There are so many variables involved here that the best case scenario is that we don’t have the capacity to determine one way or the other. Looking at IQ data and throwing away essential data such as culture, tribal dynamics, family dynamics, power structures, institutions, wealth…(again I can go on and on and still miss most available variables)… is well, not a smart thing to do.
Very well said, @notigering.
While British boarding schools in the middle ages are fascinating, how is that remotely related to the use of race in college admissions?
So the personal opinion of a HS student versus 100 years of well established peer reviewed science.
The idea that environmental interventions are going to make significant inroads into narrowing intelligence and achievement gaps has very little empirical support. Parental education, wealth, reading to children, breastfeeding, early intervention programs, etc are not in themselves going to make much difference, although each might be a good idea for other reasons.
Genetics acts as a leash on what can be done. We are gaining a more sophisticated understanding of how genes and environment interact, and in the future we may well understand the mechanisms through which actual intelligence and reasoning ability can be increased, but until then we are all stuck with the reality that each of us has to make the best of what we are born with. As a society, we need to encourage policies that allow and encourage each individual to learn and improve to the maximum extent possible.
Personally, I believe that holding to the fiction that all races and ethic groups have identical potentials on average prevents maximization of each individual’s potential. Blaming one group for the differences observed in another group is not the way to make progress.
As for whether all races have identical potentials, Harpending in the 10,000 Year Explosiion put it best. The races have been genetically separated for at least 40,000 years - arguably 150,000 years or more once you take account of Neanderthal and Denisovan admixtures. There have been massive selection pressures over those years that have led to observable and significant biological differences. The idea that all groups would have the same abilities is about as likely as throwing a fearful of silver dollars in the air and having them all land edge up. In other words, it’s impossible.
@roethlisburger group cheating (for status, when the status marker is intelligence…) and racism are as real today as it was back then. Zip-code/wealth level in the US and what it entails is a modern day analog for the British prep school system. History is important.
@SAY sorry but what we are discussing doesn’t remotely qualifies as science (today) in that it cannot be systematically measured without throwing away most variables that directly affect the outcome (group IQ).
@SatchelSF I would be surprised if all races and ethnic groups have identical intelligence potential (let’s call it IP), things are almost never like that in nature. However we would first need establish a definition for IP and then remove confounding variables affecting it, IQ tests are inherently flawed (that is the subject of another topic) and even if they weren’t there are as just too many confounding variables that makes it imposible to draw any meaningful conclusion when extrapolated to group level. Attempting to do so is no different than burying one’s head in the sand, whether that is smart or not I don’t know… But like you say, eventually we might be able to determine IP numbers on a genetic level. I don’t know the answer of course but wouldn’t be surprised if those upset for the failure of others (like myself) to recognize them (meaning their group) as smarter than say Equatoguinean people have numbers somewhere in the bottom of the IP chain…
Also @SatchelSF wrote: “Blaming one group for the differences observed in another group is not the way to make progress.”
Sure, remove the word blame but instead call it: confounding variables. Not doing so is again like sticking one’s head in the sand. We don’t need to go anywhere as far as 10,000 years to realize that institutions of primary and higher learning and the distribution of knowledge are very different depending on the place you were born or grew up in. As a thought experiment interchange Einstein’s brain at birth with that of an average Equatoguinean newborn and raise them in their respective countries/families without anyone knowing so. I don’t know what will end up happening but would be willing to bet that one with the higher intelligence will have Einstein’s body (and not brain). Environment, culture, expectations and upbringing plays a huge role here.
Going back to @roethlisburger and continuing the thought that history is important…
Groups throughout history have ALWAYS asserted that their own group is more “fit” than other groups. They always contend that their group is superior by inventing a game (call it status) and then placing the goal in whatever place it is convenient, usually where they get to win and feel superior to others, aka special. Goal post can be anything, say certain physical characteristics such as being of a certain color, hair characteristics, taller, or subjective ones such as being richer, believing in the correct gods or mixed ones such as possessing more intelligence.
Now since subjective and mixed characteristics can be tweaked or amplified it is no secret that an arms race exists for any giving group to beat all others. Institutions come in handy for this… Say banks, corporations and colonialism to obtain wealth, grandiose churches (with lots of money and status symbols) to establish a reputation and gain followers and maybe castigate others and yes: superior schooling to pass on knowledge to the young and continue the wheel rolling forward in that regard. Whole cultures gets established around these institutions and some get better access while others are shunned out. No wonder that as a group those with better resources tend to be welthier, more ____ (<----) insert religion and have higher levels or education and IQ.
No one can feel special or superior if there are no inferior people below them. So the poor, infidel and stupid/illiterate/undereducated/low-IQ/you-name-it get shunned out of the respective institutions. This is quite easy to visualize with wealth and religion but what about intelligence? Again, many people (I again argue that they are either lazy thinkers or worse…) conclude that since winning the IQ game feels so good (winning increases dopamine which activates the reward network in the brain) and that thinking is a human characteristic then their supposed higher IQ means they are well more human. In turn others get to be demihuman (at best). Again, they fail to realize that this is nothing more than a game which is rigged in their favor. Do you live in a zip code with better schools? a first word country with better educational resources? have access to educated interested tutors (maybe they are your parents)?, etc… then IMO it is kind of sad that you are comparing yourself to someone that doesn’t and then claim you have some genetic advantage over them.
You’re wrong about the relationship between IQ and environment. Studies of adopted kids show the correlation between the adult IQ of non-biologically related kids raised in this same household to be less than 0.1, close to the correlation you would find if you selected two members of the population at random. Even if we assume for the sake of argument IQ is 100% environmental, college admissions isn’t based on an IQ test, so I ask again what in the world does this have to do with the original topic?
The basic confound that is often made in discussions like this one is the confounding of environmental factors and intelligence itself. Intelligence, like many biological processes, is highly heritable. Intelligence also confers huge advantages in modern Western society. Therefore, it is not surprising that the most advantaged parents are also the smartest and most able to provide environmental advantages to their children, who are smarter not because of those environmental advantages, but because of their parents’ genetics.(Remember we are always taking about averages here - any individual can be far above or below his group “average” and likewise his parents’ intelligence.)
So, it is not like we have an equal genetic playing field and somehow wealthy parents, good schools, good parenting, good nutrition, etc. simply drop from the sky. The more intelligent create better environmental conditions for nurturing and encouraging the next generation. That generation is also more intelligent because of heritability. One can go crazy trying to tease out all the confounds, but for me the basic truth remains: intelligence creates the environment, not the other way around. Thought experiments about putting Einstein’s brain in an Equatoguinean body are interesting, but the reality is the likelihood that an Einstein is born in a society with less than 70 IQ mean is just about impossible.
Many posters betray their own value judgments about intelligence. It is just one aspect of a person, and in many societies throughout history did not confer the advantages it does today in Western first world societies. That’s part of the reason why group differences in intelligence exist. For some races and periods of time it was such a huge advantage that it was selected for, while for others it wasn’t. There’s no need to get all emotional about this. Nature simply is. It doesn’t care if it does not conform with a (highly Western and recent) sense of fairness. It is certainly not a conspiracy for one group to dominate another, or to feel good about winning the genetic lottery, although no doubt some domination and self satisfaction do result.
Getting back to college admissions, I am most interested in the identification of talent wherever it appears. I believe testing is the best method for identifying this. Some realism about the nature of group differences in intelligence would allow us to construct some honest admissions policies that take account of these differences while still preserving the dignity to which all human beings are entitled. I believe the current system, which attempts to address group differences in intelligence through a fiction that the preferences need only be slight or the implicit fiction that nebulous concepts like character and grit just happen to be distributed unevenly in favour of the groups that test lower, is not fooling anyone. It’s a tough problem, I admit.