May 10, 2010

Two gaps

A reader writes:
By the way, your observation that it'd be simpler, cheaper, and more beneficial to society to raise everyone's test scores slightly than to raise black and Hispanic test scores enough to close the racial achievement gap got me thinking about the interesting differences in how American society handles a parallel gap in the area of gender and health--the fact that women have an average life expectancy over 6% greater than men.

A few comparisons, with the gender life expectancy gap listed first, the racial achievement gap listed second:

- no big deal vs. national scandal;

- caused by biology + cultural factors too deepseated to be worth attempting to change vs. no biological contribution, the primary causes being malleable features of socioeconomic environment + racial prejudice and racial insecurity;

- near-term goal is general advance for all vs. near-term goal is advancement solely of lowest-performing group/s;

- ultimate goal is that everyone achieve the longest life expectancy he or she is capable of vs. ultimate goal is that everyone be perfectly equal;

- "cure" sought through targeted and control-grouped experimentation of ways to mitigate damage done by known contributing factors vs. "cure" sought through sweeping programs with weak controls and a high romantic theorizing-to-empirical verification ratio

39 comments:

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

That's because non-Jewish white men are not allowed to think of themselves as an interest group, or to pursue those policies which would specifically be beneficial to them.

The disparity between men and women is, of course, not just limited to lifespan. Men are also 5-10 times more likely to go to prison or jail. That, of course, is chalked up to men being morally inferior or naturally more violent. Said explanation emphatically does not apply to the disparity between whites and blacks.

And that supposed wage gap between men and women? Whose wealth do you think all those women are living off when they live 5-10-30 years longer than their husbands? Who's paid for the homes they're living in during that time? Who earned the pension checks they're collecting? Who gets more support from the taxpayers in their retirement years - men or women? The average woman probably collects social security for nearly twice as long as the average man, yet is that factored in to income disparity?

Women are now about 30-40% more likely to graduate from college, too, yet that disparity seems of no concern to anyone.

And should I even get into the fact that Barack Obama has now appointed who will be, if confirmed, the third Jewish justice to sit on the current Supreme Court. It will be utterly hilarious to watch them hand down their next decision (or dissent) supporting the right of the state to discriminate against whites in order to achieve equality - and have that opinion signed by three Jews, with no hint of irony or hypocrisy.

Kylie said...

Yes, race trumps gender.

I wonder if our current Secretary of State finds that chagrining or consoling or both.

Anonymous said...

ultimate goal is that everyone be perfectly equal

The only way for everyone to be perfectly equal is for everyone to be equally [& perfectly] DEAD.

Which, ultimately, is the raison d'ĂȘtre of the nihilism which fuels leftist insanity.

Dahlia said...

The two gaps are in essence about envy.

The male/female gender gap doesn't matter as much because envy is reduced or non-existent.
a. The most independently successful group, men, are at a disadvantage which is what is important in a liberal society. The advantaged group, women, is less afraid of the men becoming hostile towards them as a result of mens' other advantages.
b. Healthy and normal men and women are intertwined and see each other more as "us" rather than antagonistically as "them". For example, we all have an opposite sex parent and spouse and usually siblings and children as well.

With racial and ethnic groups they are not related and that means everything. The disadvantaged group inevitably is envious, and the advantaged group is instinctively afraid of their envy.

Helmut Schoeck, in his book, Envy, showed the extent to which we all know this and act accordingly in every day life. We vascillate between wanting to show high status and showing humility. Someone pays us a compliment and we thank them, but often feel a need to downplay it a little as if it were "nothing special" what we achieved, performed, etc.

KDeRosa said...

I'm not so sure that raising everyone's tests scores is still the federal plan, Steve. Nor is it raising just black and Hispanic scores the plan either.

No, the new plan is to creae an education ghetto. Obama's new proposal to make a college-ready track and a career-ready track.

Let's see how that works out in practice. Let's set college-ready as NAEP's "proficient and above" level and career-ready as "basic and below basic" and pull our data from the latest 2009 NAEP 8th grade reading assessment which gets beyond basic decoding and is not yet infected with high drop-out levles.

College Ready : whites and asians: 43%; blacks and Hispanics: 16%

Career Ready Track: Whites and asians: 57%; blacks and Hispanics: 84%.

Actual Career Ready (% on Career Ready Track scoring at the basic level): Whites and asians: 71%; blacks and Hispanics: 51%.

Apparently no one on team Obama knows anything about statistics since these results seem to be lose-lose on the political level.

OneSTDV said...

I wrote a rough draft of a similar post awhile back.

How about the college degree gap? I think women get something like 60% of college degrees? But of course, it's only the math and science gender gap that matters.

Anonymous said...

I was looking at actuarial tables recently and noticed that while the male-femal life expectancy gap was about 6 years at birth, it was less than 2 years for people who had already reached 60. Does anyone know how much of the gap is due to direct biological factors vs. behavioral differences (many more men die in accidents or on the job) - and yes, I'm aware that these behavioral differences also probably have a biological element that is an indirect factor in their causation.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Steve-o,

What do you think about Barry O's selecting two barren, overweight, middle-aged lesbians for SCOTUS?

I think in a backhanded way it confirms your thesis that he doesn't think much of the position of Supreme Court Justice.

Jim Bowery said...

How much genetic variation is there between vs within sexes?

What would Lewontin do?

For that matter, what would Edwards do?

josh said...

A bit OT,but Iron Man is #1 at the box office. It made $7 million in China. And I am sure 100% of the box office is reported honestly in China...

Usually Lurking said...

Forget Lifespan. Look at the educational gaps in...
- HS Graduation
- College Attendance
- College Graduation
- Grad School Attendance
- Grad School Completion

... plus things like children being prescribed meds like Ritalin for ADHD. The list goes on and on.

Svigor said...

The Authors write the Narrative, the only unifying theme of which is "who-whom?" Then the Useful Idiots follow the Narrative.

Toadal said...

Steve wrote:
- caused by biology + cultural factors too deep seated to be worth attempting to change vs. no biological contribution, the primary causes being malleable features of socioeconomic environment + racial prejudice and racial insecurity;

I'd always found it odd American society's willingness to accept the idea that there is no biological contribution to academic test scores when we can witness contrary biological evidence every day. For example, psychological researchers have reported medium-sized correlations between reaction times and cognitive ability, that is, there is a tendency for individuals with higher IQ to have faster reaction times.

"The strength of the RT-IQ association is a subject of research. Several studies have reported association between simple reaction time and intelligence or around (r=-.31), with a tendency for larger associations between choice reaction time and intelligence (r=-.49)."

To put this in ethnic terms, like cognitive ability, one can predict that the normal distribution of African American reaction times is significantly to the left of whites and whites would be slightly to the left of east Asians.

Activities or sports requiring fast physical reaction times would have proportionality less African American participation rates than whites and whites participation rates would be less than east Asians. Black Americans would simply enjoy them less. Therefore we can predict, with some confidence, there are very few renown African American ping pong (table tennis) players since the sport requires a fast reaction time. There would also be proportionally fewer African Americans participating in gymnastics, badminton, and air hockey, to name three activities off the top of my head. Juggling is another obvious past time fewer African Americans would enjoy.

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

You know why men die earlier than women?

Because we want to

SFG said...

This and the draft were the two main reasons I never became a feminist despite a copious dose of liberal brainwashing at a young age.

That said, to start to close the gap we'd have to further attack some male virtues like stoicism that conservatives are rather fond of.

Of course, liberals refuse to care about men at all (boys have been doing worse in school for a while and they still obsess about girls not doing math), so there's nobody to go to bat for us.

Women have completely abdicated any responsibility towards men, but men remain chivalrous towards women. I'm with the Spearhead crowd on this one (as on most things, though I do have to admit the feminization of scifi is probably good for nerds on balance).

Anonymous said...

Or the gap in thinking about homosexuality. Anytime some nut says that being gay is a choice, we shout them down for even suggesting it.

Antioco Dascalon said...

I was thinking exactly on these lines just before I surfed over here. If a law that disproportionately effects a particular racial group, say that causes Hispanics to be asked to show their identification, is considered unconsitutional because it violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment, then aren't virtually all criminal statutes similarly unconstitutional? Clearly, NAMs are disproportionately arrested, convicted, sentenced and punished. Is the law against murder unconstitutional since AAs are much more likely to be convicted of murder than whites?
Some would sympathize with this, but let's take it one step further. AAs are about 2-3 times overrepresented in murders, but women are underrepresented by an order of magnitude.
If the single fact that immigration laws effect Hispanics more than others prove that the laws are unconstitutional and racist, then why doesn't the single fact that criminal laws effect men more than women prove that the laws are unconstitutional and sexist?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

What do you think about Barry O's selecting two barren, overweight, middle-aged lesbians for SCOTUS?

I wonder in part if his choice of a woman is meant to shore up his support amongst female voters. If he had chosen a black female then in the public's perception her race would've trumped her gender.

From an electoral perspective his best bet would've been a straight, white, at least nominally Protestant woman or man, as it would've downplayed his obsession with race and identity and shown an identification with the upper class whites who elected him, who are now the ones feeling most betrayed by his behavior.

Of course why be an anti-white anti-Christian bigot if you can't make it matter on the big appointments?

I also think that his choice of a Jewish justice reveals the importance of Jews among the people who foisted him on us to begin with. Jewish power players like George Soros, Haim Saban and Rahm Emanuel are willing to "pass over" temporary, bit parts like SecDef and AG, but the Fed and the Supreme Court are for keeps. They're the two most powerful branches of the federal government, from which there is no appeal, and, in the case of the SC, the job can be for 30 years or more.

Meanwhile, it'll be interesting to see if the two lesbians don't become lovers (assuming they aren't already). The upside is that gay marriage is now the law in D.C.; the downside is that, since they're b2b appointments, they'll be seated on the far opposite sides of the bench, so there'll be no playing footsie or holding hands under the table during sessions.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

On Obama's Supreme Court nominee: it'll be fascinating to see the Court hand down decisions (or dissents) on why the government is justified in allowing or forcing discrimination in order to create "equality" between the races - decisions or dissents invariably supported and signed by - count em! - three Jews. Oh, the irony, which will invariably go unmentioned in the press.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

If a law that disproportionately effects a particular racial group, say that causes Hispanics to be asked to show their identification, is considered unconsitutional because it violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment, then aren't virtually all criminal statutes similarly unconstitutional?

I strongly support 1070, but I don't think the objections that its opponents have or will make in court is that it will result in disproportionate arrests but that it will result in a disproportionate number of checks of Hispanics specifically because of their race, before a crime has yet been proven. Of course illegal immigration is a rare crime where it is the legal documentation (or lack thereof) that proves the crime.

Their arguments are spurious but, unfortunately, powerful in waging their PR war against the measure.

I think Americans are growing tired of police and security forces who can't use their brains to pay more attention to likely culprits, and I don't see anything in the Constitution that bars law enforcement from doing so.

Truth said...

"What do you think about Barry O's selecting two barren, overweight, middle-aged lesbians for SCOTUS?"

Well, it they weren't "barren" (i.e. had spent 20 years of their earlier lives raising children) they probably wouldn't be in the position to be a candidate, overweight is a matter of opinion, and being middle aged is a bit of a condition of having been a lawyer LONG ENOUGH TO QUALIFY TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

Truth said...

"Yes, race trumps gender."

This is a thread about Barry appointing a white woman to the Supreme Court isn't it, or am I on the wrong post?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Well, it they weren't "barren" (i.e. had spent 20 years of their earlier lives raising children) they probably wouldn't be in the position to be a candidate, overweight is a matter of opinion, and being middle aged is a bit of a condition of having been a lawyer LONG ENOUGH TO QUALIFY TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE...This is a thread about Barry appointing a white woman to the Supreme Court isn't it, or am I on the wrong post?

1) 20 years: See Ginsburg and O'Connor

2) Obese: a matter of fact, not opinion

3) Middle-aged: you are correct

4) Subject of post: the Supreme Court issue is a threadjack, and not directly related to Sailer's original post.

So you're batting .250 here, Truth, thus your stats are actually improving.

MTG said...

"What do you think about Barry O's selecting two barren, overweight, middle-aged lesbians for SCOTUS?
I think in a backhanded way it confirms your thesis that he doesn't think much of the position of Supreme Court Justice."

It makes perfect sense. He's out to win the women vote.
He's out to win the Hispanic vote.
He has to pay back the Jews for making him president.

Kagan looks like Frank Rich in drag. Ugh.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Troof,

Marriage and child-rearing provide a great deal of perspective, and is perforce the norm for a viable nation. There are plenty of accomplished women with husbands and children out there. After all--from his perspective anyway--that's who he chose to raise his two children and be his life's companion. (It's interesting how the liberal elite rarely govern their personal lives by the lodestars of 'tolerance' and 'diversity' they insist the masses must scrupulously follow.)

The fact that he chose two barren hags who lack this crucial perspective indicates to me that he holds the institution in deep contempt. I'm open to any counter-thesis.

keypusher said...

Well, it they weren't "barren" (i.e. had spent 20 years of their earlier lives raising children) they probably wouldn't be in the position to be a candidate, overweight is a matter of opinion, and being middle aged is a bit of a condition of having been a lawyer LONG ENOUGH TO QUALIFY TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

Thanks for responding to a mean-spirited post, Truth. I should say that Ruth Bader Ginsberg made it to the Court despite having some lovely children, one of whom taught me copyright law. But RBG was much older when she was appointed than Sotomayor or Kagan.

Kylie said...

Truth said...
"'Yes, race trumps gender.'"

This is a thread about Barry appointing a white woman to the Supreme Court isn't it, or am I on the wrong post?"

Precisely. We have Barry, the first black POTUS, making Supreme Court Justice nominations instead of Hillary, the first female POTUS, making them.

As I said, race trumps gender.

Kylie said...

The Anti-Gnostic said: "What do you think about Barry O's selecting two barren, overweight, middle-aged lesbians for SCOTUS?

I think in a backhanded way it confirms your thesis that he doesn't think much of the position of Supreme Court Justice."

Then he must not think much of the position of Secretary of Homeland Security, either.

Anonymous said...

What's more, this most recent barren, overweight, middle-aged lesbian for SCOTUS is on the payroll of Goldman-Sachs.

Yes, John Derbyshire: Goldman-Sachs.

GOLDMAN.

SACHS.

Purchasing the presidency in 2008 didn't satiate their appetite for power; now they have to own the courts, as well.

TGGP said...

I know there are explicitly Jewish groups and that's considered acceptable (as I believe are various other "ethnics"), but Jewish MEN specifically? There are jokes about shiksas & jewish princesses, but that's not the same thing as formation of tolerated interest groups.

TGGP said...

Also, while it does seem to be the general consensus that Kagan is a lesbian, Sotomayor has been married before and got engaged to another man after that. I hadn't heard anything about her being a lesbian.

Truth said...

"Truth said...
"'Yes, race trumps gender.'"

This is a thread about Barry appointing a white woman to the Supreme Court isn't it, or am I on the wrong post?"

Precisely. We have Barry, the first black POTUS, making Supreme Court Justice nominations instead of Hillary, the first female POTUS, making them.

As I said, race trumps gender."

Oh, now I get it Kylie.

(no, that's sarcasm, I don't.)

Truth said...

"Marriage and child-rearing provide a great deal of perspective,"

And you have how many children, Thomas Bradford?

"There are plenty of accomplished women with husbands and children out there."

Certainly there are, and there are plenty of major league basbeball players with PHD's from Harvard... No wait, there aren't because spending an additional 10 years doing something unrelated is not a good business decision for someone who wants to get to the top of a competitive field, get it?

(no, of course you don't but just nod your head, sir.)

"After all--from his perspective anyway--that's who he chose to raise his two children and be his life's companion."

Michelle O is "accomplished"; as a wife and mother, not in many other ways, because she made that choice, and it was a choice, Sotamayor and Kagan are accomplished in different ways and I'm not one to criticize, but then, I don't sit around in a old ladies crochet group talking about the neighbors either.

"The fact that he chose two barren hags..."

OK, so it's established; you look like Cary Grant, you have a soccer team full of children, and you make enough money so that your wife has never had to hold a job. Some of us get all the luck but please don't be so harsh on us humans from atop Mt. Olympus.

"...indicates to me that he holds the institution in deep contempt. I'm open to any counter-thesis."

Counter thesis huh, uh, let's see: Michelle, Sasha, Malia. You think It'll pass review?

It is just amazing how incredibly mean-spirited and small some of you people are. I'm the one who is supposed to hate white people, remember?

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

What's more, this most recent barren, overweight, middle-aged lesbian for SCOTUS is on the payroll of Goldman-Sachs."

Huffpo is already pooh-poohing this connection:

"On Friday, a slew of inquiries was made to the White House and Justice Department about a minor post Solicitor General Elena Kagan once held at Goldman Sachs, the investment bank under fire over controversial mortgage securities transactions. Kagan served on a Goldman advisory council between 2005 and 2008, with the task of providing expert "analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients." For her work she earned a $10,000 stipend."

Well that's $10,000 more than Goldman Sachs ever paid me. Moreover, they're saying it's "old news" because it was bought up at the time of her confirmation as solicitor general.

(It's funny how leftists always bring up the "It's old news" excuse. Sure, our guy was found to have a basement full of dead hobos, whom he murdered with an axe, but he's moved beyond that. We're not living in the past. We think the American people want an axe-murderer who understands they're concerns and will address the issues that affect them in they're everyday lives.)

$10,000 isn't much for a Harvard professor, it's true. What I want to know is: did she buy any Goldman Sachs stock at the time. How much? Did she buy any investments recommended to her by the people she was "advising". And why did they hire her to advise them? Perhaps because they knew she had an inside track to become a supreme court justice?

Mr. Anon said...

"TGGP said...

I know there are explicitly Jewish groups and that's considered acceptable (as I believe are various other "ethnics"), but Jewish MEN specifically?"

It's called "The Federal Reserve".

Mr. Anon said...

Representation on the Supreme Court vs. fraction of the U.S. population

Jewish
USA: ~3%
SCOTUS: 33%

Lesbian:
USA: ~3%
SCOTUS: 11-22%

Married Women of Marriageable Age:
USA: ~60%
SCOTUS: 33%

Protestant:
USA: ~50%
SCOTUS: 0%

Truly a court that "Looks Like America".

student observer said...

"Also, while it does seem to be the general consensus that Kagan is a lesbian, Sotomayor has been married before and got engaged to another man after that. I hadn't heard anything about her being a lesbian."

Certain guys on this forum bitch about women as incessantly as any sewing circle, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker.
Sotomayor is sort of creepy and racist, but I had no idea of her being a lesbian and just started to accept it because everyone here said she was, because, well, she's not married, is overweight and not too cute.
Fits most heteros of a certain age, and both genders.

rock-a-bye-baby said...

"It is just amazing how incredibly mean-spirited and small some of you people are. I'm the one who is supposed to hate white people, remember?"

Yeah, I've rarely had an urge to second Truth, but here he speaks the truth.
Still, politicians and quasi-politiicans (Supreme Court Justices, for example) of any gender, color, religion, sexual preference or fertility barometer, are not really worth too much fretting over. They are all rubbing each others rotten backs. Nancy Pelosi with her brood of 5 and her billionaire husband is as sickening a display of god-knows-what as if she'd never experienced the tender joys of maternity or a manly embrace.
Maybe those plastic wombs the Japanese are perfecting will render all this angst obsolete some day. Then you will have the pleasure of saying nyah nyah nyah.

gwern said...

Fairness isn't just about a specific metric - it's about the net over metrics we care about. Only STEM folks consider the male visualization advantage to be a problem because women get other advantages (like verbal and social edges).

The points about risky behaviour are quite true, and besides that self-inflicted reduction in lifespan ('you men brought it down on yourselves!'), there's the fact that being a woman is not cost-free.

Menstruation, pregnancy, beast cancer... these are all long-ongoing costs. If just your PMS is bad enough to ruin one day a month, then that erases a lot of the longevity advantage.