May 10, 2013

"Jason Richwine and a Bottle of Rich Wine"

James Thompson, a psychologist at University College London, makes an offer:
One of the pleasures of taking a break in France is that when you “French Google” (an enquiry after meaning, not a sexual position) the case of Jason Richwine, currently subject to a public hate session, you get a reassuring collection of articles on fine wines. But, away from la belle France, in the land of Coca Cola the name of Richwine is now up in the spotlight of the haters, being Watson’d (see James Watson, Nobel Laureate and UnPerson on this blog) for repeating out loud the well-known data on intelligence, scholastic achievement and employability which is normally published in discrete tables in obscure papers, where it will not frighten the horses. 
Although our genetics we will always have with us, the code of our ancestry written in every cell of our bodies, the labels we attach to racial groups, generally accurately, vary from country to country.  ...
I have had a look at what Jason Richwine has said, and his comments are in line with the current data.  So here is the challenge: a bottle of fine French wine sent to the first person who can show that Hispanic/Latino American intelligence and scholastic ability is on the same level as European American intelligence and scholastic ability. 
Data please.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

somebody get unz on the case, quick!

Mr Lomez said...

So does this Richwine backlash ultimately help or hurt the conservative position on immigration?

On the one hand, any press is good press. Unlike the Summers and Watson hatefests, which were sparked by off-handed comments that couldn't be immediately supported by evidence, Richwine's claims are nuanced, well-stated, and accompanied by huge data sets. Young, open minds might be exposed to HBD for the first time via this paper, which is a perfect testimony not only to the fact that group differences exist, but that they have undeniable political implications.

On the other hand, this reinforces the Narrative™ that any right-wing opposition to immigration reform/amnesty is based on racism, xenophobia, etc. Once those words are in play, the rest of the conversation becomes really easy for them to shut down.

Anonymous said...

James,

The gentleman from Heritage is being smeared.

The difference in cognitive ability between Hispanics and whites (favoring whites) is generally d~.5 or larger.

This difference:

(a) is observed on a variety of g-loaded tests (SAT, ACT, Wechsler, ASVAB, AFQT), indicating that it is not test-specific;

(b) is observed on tests measuring non-verbal abilities (matrix reasoning), indicating that it is not an artifact of verbal items;

(c) is related to other indicators of mental ability (e.g., grades and job performance), indicating that it is externally valid.

(d) is *not* related to differences in the predictive validity of tests, indicating that the tests are not predictively biased.

I read the gentleman's dissertation. It's superbly written and reasoned. His thesis is that low-IQ immigrants would be a net cost to the country. Such a a claim should not be controversial.

He also argues that high-IQ immigrants could be a net benefit to the country - a thesis which is consonant with intelligence research and which has received far less attention.

See you in Australia!

Anonymous said...

Are we talking Romani Conti here?

pat said...

Who would want French Wine when I can get Californian?

Please, go to the movies more. Five years ago there was a wonderful film called 'Bottle Shock' about when Californian wines first beat out the French wines - in France.

Wine was probably first produced in the Ukraine. Then it travelled south to Greece, west to Italy, and west again to France. More recently it has traveled far west to the Napa Valley.

I recently discovered a sublime Chardonnay from Mendocino at only about $10 a bottle. No, I won't give you its name. Think I'm stupid? It will be discovered soon enough at which point the price will skyrocket.

Albertosaurus



Aaron Gross said...

I'll repost a comment I made at theatlantic.com: Christopher Jencks was on Richwine's dissertation committee and approved his Ph.D. dissertation.

Anonymous said...

I just heard Rush Limbaugh in the second half of the first hour talk about the Richwine paper. The argument was structured the same as Steve Sailer's.

Steve Sailer was not credited. But, of course!

Anonymous said...

Don't ask Steven Pinker for evidence supporting racial parity. Near the end of his 2011 "The Better Angels of Our Nature" he finally gets around to discussing the evidence for recent selection on populations in modern state societies, and concludes:

“In fact the evidence for recent selection, if it applies to genes with effects on cognition and emotion, would license a far more radical form of evolutionary psychology, one in which minds have been biologically shaped by recent environments in addition to ancient ones. And it could have the incendiary implication that aboriginal and immigrant populations are less biologically adapted to the demands of modern life than populations that have lived in literate state societies for millennia. The fact that a hypothesis is politically uncomfortable does not mean that it is false" (614).

Apparently Harvard is just festering with 19th-century racist pseudo-science.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Richwine's already been fired by Heritage.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/breaking-jason-richwine-has-resigned-from-the-heritage-foundation/article/2529392

Sword said...

One minor explanation for the gap in Scholastic test results that I have been thinking about:

I would imagnine that among those Mexicans that do well, by immigrant standards, there are some who use the resources to buy a home in the better parts of Mexico (whereever that may be) and go home, out of homesickness or to help the old parents, or for some other reason.

Those people would then mostly come from the upper strata in cognitive ability among the immigrants. They would also take home a significant proportion of their children.

All this would, if my hunch is right, select for lower scholastic test results among the Mexican immigrant children that remain.

I would imagine that among those immigrants that do not amount to much, the various state/tax-funded help functions (ER, etc.) that exist in USA would seem more desirable than their Mexican counterparts, which would selectively hold the lower immigrant strata in USA.

Are there systematic data on this? Are there several anecdotal cases that could be used in internet discussions?

Anonymous said...

C'mon if there is anyone who doesn't read iSteve it is Rush. It's not like he doesn't get what Steve is saying but the change of spitting out some half digested tidbit off iSteve and getting labeled racist would be a dumb risk to run. David Brooks needs column ideas so he comes to iSteve Rush can pretty much talk about anything so he likely sticks to sites that don't traffic in ideas that could let the left let out another Fluke attack.

Thanks Aaron Gross. Steve only scooped you by like three days on that. Maybe spend a little less time preening at TAC and you'd have known that.

Anonymous said...

What does Rush Limbaugh care? He's got more money than he could possibly ever need. His show is wildly popular, and he owns it. If sponsors drop him there will be others lining up to replace him. Sponsors who did drop him over Sandra Fluke ended up dead in the water (Carbonite) and he's got people paying for special access to his shows. If he wants he can simply do paid podcasts and not be on the air at all -- Adam Carolla does a free sponsored podcast and rakes in big bucks.

That's the point of Rush -- he's independent. He doesn't care, neither does Steyn or Coulter. They are all independent of the media/university system because they are popular and populist independent entertainers.

Rohan Swee said...

pat: Who would want French Wine when I can get Californian?

I would.

Five years ago there was a wonderful film called 'Bottle Shock' about when Californian wines first beat out the French wines - in France.

Why should I let a movie (or other imbibers) dictate my tastes, when my own palate works just fine? And my palate says, vive la France.

Nothing against California wines. When circumstances demand, I manfully drink my way through California vineyards with admirable stoic cheer. But if I had to choose one country in which to burden my liver, it would be la belle France. Chacun à son goût!

Just a bit of OT relief. The events chronicled here would drive a teetotaler to drink.

Svigor said...

Unlike the [...] Watson hatefests, which were sparked by off-handed comments that couldn't be immediately supported by evidence

Wait, what?

On the other hand, this reinforces the Narrative™ that any right-wing opposition to immigration reform/amnesty is based on racism, xenophobia, etc. Once those words are in play, the rest of the conversation becomes really easy for them to shut down.

Feature, not bug. Lefties have no business importing millions of xenos into an America seething with xenophobia and racism. Immigration moratorium: do it for the poor darkies.

I just heard Rush Limbaugh in the second half of the first hour talk about the Richwine paper. The argument was structured the same as Steve Sailer's.

Steve Sailer was not credited. But, of course!


I caught a few minutes of that as well, and was kinda surprised to hear Rush highlighting it, and so quickly.

Charlesz Martel said...

In my experience, there are good California wines. But in general, California wines are too sweet - "fruit forward", they call it. I call It California Kool-Aid. This is better than the crap they produced 40 years ago, which I called "California Kerosene".
If you like a dryer wine, you can get decent California ones- but at twice the price of a decent French, Italian, or Spanish wine. It's due to market demand and differences in national palates, as well as economics.

Anonymous said...

Argentine Malbecs from Mendoza are a good, affordable way to go if reds are your thing.

-The Judean People's Front