For John, BLUF: Never let truth get in the way of your political stance. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Blogger and Law Professor Ann Althouse gives us a blog post that points us to an Andrew Sullivan post "Race And IQ. Again."
This all goes back to the question of if we accept vetted research that runs against the grain of our ideals (or prejudices). From the lede:
I should know better than to bring this up again. But the effective firing of a researcher, Heritage’s Jason Richwine, because of his Harvard dissertation should immediately send up red flags about intellectual freedom.What we have is a PhD being hounded because some don't agree with his findings, findings accepted by his thesis committee, all distinguished professors at Harvard University. While I may think Harvard's reputation is a bit overblown, I think that folks who teach and research at Harvard are a pretty bright bunch. Given who has been doing the complaining, this episode brings up the question:
What on earth are these “liberals” so terrified of, if not the truth?Yes, that wording is a little awkward, but Mr Sullivan is a Brit. Following this question Mr Sullivan goes on to say that what we should be doing is peeling back the layers, in this case of what IQ means. Often we stop at some superficial level, rather than asking about the underlying assumptions. That is heavy lifting, but it needs to be done.
Regards — Cliff
NB: Title quote is by Colonel Nathan R Jessep in the movie A Few Good Men.
Liberalism/utopianism (actually on one level pretty much the same) have forcefully taken the moral high ground. The problem is, that high ground has little substance and even less factual support. There ARE differences between races...physically, medically, emotionally, and on and on...so why is it a stretch to consider that there are also intellectual differences. Do these "equality" nuts think that generations in a given environment have no effect on the genes....including those that predispose some people to be extraordinarily smart? The problem is....as it always is....the group grabs a word and applies it across the canvas....and in this case...the quest for and insistence of EQUALITY. It ain't going to happen....and liberalism is not going to be able to force it....and we aren't talking about EQUALITY anyway....what we are talking about is equity. "the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: "
ReplyDeleteWords DO have importance!!!
Counter it with a study, that shows evidence of environmental factors and not genetic ones.
ReplyDeleteBut it is BOTH genetics and environment. Genetics is a long term deal, but can be altered in the short run too....disposition to this or that, not apparent until "provoked" under the pressure of a given environment. The PROBLEM is that people are trying to MAKE genetics and environment things that they are not....and they are doing so demanding that we must all be EQUAL. We are NOT equal...not in any way...nor should we be. We should have EQUAL opportunity to take advantage of whatever tools are ours to use...and that should not be denied us by our membership in a class or subspecies. THAT is not EQUALITY...it is EQUITY. EQUALITY turns humankind into an amorphous, faceless sameness....true communism....while EQUITY thrives on....gives breath to....individualism....it is a celebrate in the differences among us and the challenge to optimize all those differences in beneficial ways.
ReplyDeleteI have to mull this over. It's not obviously breathy & useless.
ReplyDelete"EQUALITY turns humankind into an amorphous, faceless sameness....true communism....while EQUITY thrives on....gives breath to....individualism....it is a celebrate in the differences among us and the challenge to optimize all those differences in beneficial ways. "
The distinction Neal makes between equality and equity is a non-issue, at least as it pertains to general (or even liberal) use. In common vernacular, when people use the word equality they are using a meaning that is congruous with Neal's use of Equity.
ReplyDeleteThis practical non-distinction is sometimes misused in right wing media in ways that mirror the misuse of the real distinction between uses (general and scientific) of the word 'theory'.