Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times:
After all, Craig Mundie, the chief research and strategy officer of Microsoft, asks: What made America this incredible engine of prosperity? It was immigration, plus free markets. Because we were so open to immigration — and immigrants are by definition high-aspiring risk-takers, ready to leave their native lands in search of greater opportunities — “we as a country accumulated a disproportionate share of the world’s high-I.Q. risk-takers.”... In its heyday, our unique system also attracted a disproportionate share of high-I.Q. risk-takers to high government service. So when you put all this together, with our free markets and democracy, it made it easy here for creative, high-I.Q. risk-takers to raise capital for their ideas and commercialize them. ...
“When you get this happy coincidence of high-I.Q. risk-takers in government and a society that is biased toward high-I.Q. risk-takers, you get these above-average returns as a country,” argued Mundie. “What is common to Singapore, Israel and America? They were all built by high-I.Q. risk-takers and all thrived ...
It isn’t drastic, but it is a decline — at a time when technology is allowing other countries to leverage and empower more of their own high-I.Q. risk-takers. If we don’t reverse this trend, over time, “we could lose our most important competitive edge — the only edge from which sustainable advantage accrues” — having the world’s biggest and most diverse pool of high-I.Q. risk-takers, said Mundie.
Posts
82 comments:
Exactly -- our new LEGAL immigrants from NE Asia, South Asia and even many from Africa, are exactly the high-IQ risk takers that help our nation.
The uneducated who couldn't even get menial work in Mexico are not.
Which brings up the subject -- how are we going to help democratize the Mexican economy so their economic outcasts aren't tempted to move here?
Does Friedman actually believe IQ tests actually measure anything important? I'd be surprised if he does.
We need health care, financial reform and education reform. But we also need to be thinking just as seriously and urgently about what are the ingredients that foster entrepreneurship - how new businesses are catalyzed, inspired and enabled and how we enlist more people to do that - so no one ever says about America what that officer says to Tom Cruise in "Top Gun": "Son, your ego's writing checks your body can't cash."
Yikes!
"Your body" would include "your head", and "your head" would include "your skull", and "your skull" would encase "your gray matter", and "your gray matter" would provide a pretty reliable interface to your mind.
Wouldn't it?
PS: This piece, and, in particular, that final sentence, could also be taken as a not-so-subtle metaphorical dig at the Obama administration [writing checks] and the voter demographic which it has evolved to serve [checks which that demographic - that body politic - will never be able to cover].
Does Friedman actually believe IQ tests actually measure anything important?
Don't kid yourself - all Jews do.
[As do all Brahmin and all Han and all Japanese and all Koreans and all every-God-damned-else-body.]
Their public protestations to the contrary are just for show - you folks really need to learn to separate rhetoric from reality.
One could re-frame Friedman's assertion and ask Friedman, "should we only admit immigrants with IQ's over 120, since you claim we only benefit from HIGH IQ risk takers?
Your follow-up remark would be something like, "I mean Tom, we surely can't benefit from immigrants who have IQ's in the 80's can we?"
He would have opened the high-IQ pandora's box all by himself, thus would be forced to defend letting in low-IQ'ed, illiterate and innumerate illegals if he attempted to disagree with you.
The Irish Savant had a great list of all the things Tom Friedman has predicted and has been severely wrong about. Food shortages in China due to wheat prices (2001), the Democrats were going to pay dearly for being against the Iraq war (2003), and a few other obviously bad prognostications. Funny stuff.
What we need is more risk-takers! Perhaps dole out some risky loans to other risk-takers! Risk risk riiiiiiiisk
"Does Friedman actually believe IQ tests actually measure anything important?"
He probably believes it. He just won't say it in public.
It's the Low IQ Risk Takers who frighten me. They seem to be protected more and more by the State these days, too.
From the NYT article: "But you cannot say this often enough: Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups. And where do start-ups come from? They come from smart, creative, inspired risk-takers. How do we get more of those? There are only two ways: grow more by improving our schools or import more by recruiting talented immigrants. Surely, we need to do both, and we need to start by breaking the deadlock in Congress over immigration, so we can develop a much more strategic approach to attracting more of the world’s creative risk-takers. 'Roughly 25 percent of successful high-tech start-ups over the last decade were founded or co-founded by immigrants,' said Litan. Think Sergey Brin, the Russian-born co-founder of Google, or Vinod Khosla, the India-born co-founder of Sun Microsystems."
Right. Since immigrants are all the same with respect to IQ and personality type, we've simply got to overhaul immigration. Then the high-IQ, risk-taking Ivan can legally start a new high-tech business here in the US after his perilous crossing of the Atlantic as a stowaway on a freighter.
And just as important to our economic recovery (and therefore our self-interest), the equally high-IQ, risk-taking Maria can walk across our southern border and deliver her anchor baby on US soil after which she can apply for benefits for her child, a US citizen, and herself, a legal immigrant.
Friedman would have us believe that not only is no human illegal but no immigrant is other than a high-IQ risk-taker. This will, of course, run counter to the observations and experiences of many who've actually dealt with those illegal immigrants who walk, rather than sail or fly, to arrive here. But a factual, common-sense argument against legalizing the status of illegal immigrants and maintaining open borders is likely to be nudged aside or totally ignored by the current government, if the recent battle over health care is any indication.
As the granddaughter of a high-IQ, risk-taking immigrant who came here legally from Central Europe 103 years ago, became a citizen, registered for service in WWI and started a successful business, I am deeply insulted by Friedman's use of the Big Lie to advance the cause of amnesty for illegals. But I don't expect him to apologize any more than I expect our black President to apologize for his
racist and contemptuous characterizations of whites as "typical" and "clinging bitterly to guns and religion".
our new LEGAL immigrants from NE Asia, South Asia and even many from Africa, are exactly the high-IQ risk takers that help our nation.
As evidenced by ... ? You're making a declaration of faith.
“we could lose our most important competitive edge — the only edge from which sustainable advantage accrues” — having the world’s biggest and most diverse pool of high-I.Q. risk-takers, said Mundie.
It's not exactly a shock to anyone in the IT world that Microsoft is a passionate believer in the replacement of American workers with Chinese and Indians.
There is not a hell of a lot of "risk-taking" involved in leaving your own crappy country to come to America and earn five times as much money. Don't even get me started on the high-IQ stuff.
Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups.
Heh. if you want a good paying job in todays America, work for the government. They pay better than the start-ups, and have MUCH better job security.
High IQ "risk takers" like the ones on Wall Street who crashed the world economy. Of course, they got their bonuses so there was little actual risk to them involved.
I wanted to leave a comment on Friedman's column saying that I'd be happy to accept more high IQ immigrants in exchange for cutting the number of immigrants with low and average IQs, but comments for the column weren't enabled.
This was a little odd. Usually the way it works on the Times editorial page is that comments are enabled for maybe one editorial, no op-eds, but all columns. However I've noticed that it has been a very long time since the Times has allowed comments on any immigration related editorial. This may be because whenever they did allow comments they would just get hammered by the normally left leaning Times readership (which is very much with them on other issues, like gay marriage or gun control). So maybe the someone knew what sort of response Friedman would get on this column, and didn't want the world to see it?
No mention of low IQ risk takers, like MS13, the Mexican Mafia, or the Guatolombian toilet cleaners who bought too many houses during the housing bubble and went on a shopping spree with money they had no intention of paying back.
What about all those Indian high IQ risk takers at Enron who defrauded power consumers and investors, or those Chinese high IQ risk takers who thought it would be a great idea to bundle bad risk loans and treat them like they were blue chip securities. And what about all those high IQ risk takers who wrote Microsoft Vista? Looks like there is no penalty for risking and failing which is why this country is such a magnet for fiscally and socially irresponsible minorities. Minority high IQ con artists on Wall Street and in business get to keep their dishonest gains. Low IQ losers get to settle down comfortably in spacious section 8 housing and spend their WIC checks on pudding pops and beer.
As the psychiatrist said in the UK comedy Fawlty Towers "There's enough material here for a whole conference"
I assume that all these beliefs about past immigrants are essentially just Foundation Myths? I mean, there's nothing so vulgar as evidence to back them up is there?
Hey, he's publicizing and linking IQ and immigration, making it more acceptable to discuss. HBDers should have thought of that - sneak the concept in, in positive form.
The Irish Savant had a great list of all the things Tom Friedman has predicted and has been severely wrong about.
But Friedman did give us the Friedman Unit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_(unit)
Oh yes, we need to import more high IQ risk takers from where... Asia & India? Those strongholds of innovation. Please. Those countries have supposedly been full of high IQ people for centuries but where has all the innovation truly taken place? That's right, in the west. However, our country discriminates against immigrants from European countries. No more bullshit about needing more Asians and Indians in the US. All they do is depress wages for native American workers who are just as smart.
Perhaps there was once some "risk-taking" involved in coming to America. I suppose that was the case in the 17th century.
But nobody for at least the last 150 years has been taking a a risk by coming to this country. People come here in the near certain knowledge that they'll have a higher standard of living than in their home country. A much higher standard in most cases.
If somebody wanted to takes risks they'd stay in Bombay or Dasmascus or Prauge and try to improve their lot there. Taking the plane to New York or LA is the low risk option.
"... high-I.Q. risk-takers in government ..."
WTF?
What makes America great is the founding population of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Everyone else came because the founding population had already made America the most free and prosperous country in the world without their help.
Recent Indian and Chinese immigration has been a disaster for white Americans. They have taken over entire industries and are crowding white Americans out of the professions and elite universities. Indian and Chinese immigrants only hire their own people when they start a business or become managers. We don't don't benefit at all from these businesses.
MQ said...
High IQ "risk takers" like the ones on Wall Street who crashed the world economy. Of course, they got their bonuses so there was little actual risk to them involved."
Exactly. High IQ risk-takers usually only take risks that aren't too risky. To the extent that they take actual risks, they're often just being stupid.
We need more Babson Colleges and fewer fake Harvards.
“we could lose our most important competitive edge — the only edge from which sustainable advantage accrues” — having the world’s biggest and most diverse pool of high-I.Q. risk-takers, said Mundie.
It's not exactly a shock to anyone in the IT world that Microsoft is a passionate believer in the replacement of American workers with Chinese and Indians.
There is not a hell of a lot of "risk-taking" involved in leaving your own crappy country to come to America and earn five times as much money. Don't even get me started on the high-IQ stuff.
-------------------------------
and why, sir, do you feel entitled to be employed at your high wages when there are people who are just as productive as you who are willing to work for much less?
do you think it's appropriate for you to capture wages that would've been theirs in a free world?
and immigrants are by definition high-aspiring risk-takers
What risk? The risk of hopping on an airplane and flying to the US, moving into an apartment/home with people who look/think/talk/act like you, in a neighborhood with same, and working for a company with same, all for the risk of increasing your earnings 5/10/100 times, and living in a country with less graft and less crime? That's one great big freaking risk.
Face it, Tommy Boy - there is no risk to coming to the US anymore, and, hell, with immigrant ghettos, immigrant restaurants, immigrant food markets and satellite television, and the internet you're not really even living your own country. And when you choose to get married to someone from the old country, the United States will let you bring them here, too!
This story touches on a recurring theme at iSteve, gold-chain wearing men:
http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14815936
Armenians up to no good.
"The shooting took place at the Hot Spot Cafe on Riverside Drive, which bills itself as a Mediterranean restaurant but which neighbors described as often oddly empty."
Friedman needs a new passport: "Citizen of the United States of High I.Q. Risk-takers of the World".
Friedman could really be saying, "make way for Jewish immigrants. They are smart!!"
I don't have a problem with immigration per se. Even illegal immigration would be okay by me if smart people from Europe--and some from Asia--came to the US by the boatload. But, we are getting a lot of Africans, illiterate Mexcians, and dishwashing Chinese(as stowaways)--not the best quality Chinese.
High IQ "risk takers" like the ones on Wall Street who crashed the world economy. Of course, they got their bonuses so there was little actual risk to them involved.
I disagree. They were not really risk-takers since they knew they had friends in high places who would bail them out. There is no risk if there's no moral hazard.
Ron Paul wants to end the Fed because he wants REAL RISK. REAL RISK makes people more cautious and responsible. With Real risk, one can win but one can lose too.
I would say firms like Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns were reckless but not risk-taking. There is a difference. They were so powerful, so connected to the big boys in government, so cabalistic, and so cocooned in a world of their own that they thought they could get away with murder... and they did.
If we restore REAL RISK, banks would not crazily borrow and recklessly lend to idiots to buy McMansions. All that happened because the government, through the Fed and FAnnie Mae and Freddie Mac, took away the risk by essentially insuring investment and banking firms from failure.
It's very funny. Liberals tell us that IQ tests are bogus and that anyone can be educated to do anything. BUT, they also say we need immigration to attract the MOST intelligent people.
Funny. We are told any inner city kid can become an Einstein but then told that we must import Einsteins from abroad. I mean which is it?
'High IQ risk-takers' - Yes quite a few of them stoop to pick strawberries for $5 an hour.
how are we going to help democratize the Mexican economy so their economic outcasts aren't tempted to move here?
Screw that s**t. Build a big fence.
If we make it easy for these high IQ types to get to the US, then how will we know they are risk takers?
Lets make it really, really difficult to enter the US, then goddamit we will know who the risk takers are.
"Face it, Tommy Boy - there is no risk to coming to the US anymore, and, hell, with immigrant ghettos, immigrant restaurants, immigrant food markets and satellite television, and the internet you're not really even living your own country. And when you choose to get married to someone from the old country, the United States will let you bring them here, too!"
Good point Mark, I know someone who came here as a child then had an arranged marriage in India and she brought the husband back with her. Then , they brought his parents over several years later.
I know Russians, some who came here illegally within the last ten years, who watch Russian Tv on satellite. Russians and Indians have a big illegal alien network that helps people come here. It costs an Indian 30 grand to get set up here including fake ssn according to this person. Coming in the 1850's on a bought is different than coming on a 747.
Plus, they have a whole foreign language section in the library in my area.
"Does Friedman actually believe IQ tests actually measure anything important?
Don't kid yourself - all Jews do.
[As do all Brahmin and all Han and all Japanese and all Koreans and all every-God-damned-else-body.]
Their public protestations to the contrary are just for show - you folks really need to learn to separate rhetoric from reality."
No I think a lot of these guys are True Believers. I've encountered many online. And in online forums people have no incentive to cover up their true feelings, unlike NYT columnists who like making a good living.
Build a big fence.
Just so long as its intent is to fence OUT, not to fence IN.
With 40 MILLION of them [& their anchor babies] already in this country, building a fence, without first removing them [and sending them home], only serves to make the problem permanent.
Everybody says Jews, then northeast Asians, are the smartest people in the world.
Okay, I'm in! I'm going to use these cognitive elites as my model.
When Israel, the Jewish state, starts importing large numbers of cognitive elites (high IQ risk takers or whatever), irrespective of circumstances of birth, I'll consider Friedman's advice.
Until then, no.
When China starts importing large numbers of people, irrespective of circumstances of birth, I'll consider it. Until then, no.
do you think it's appropriate for you to capture wages that would've been theirs in a free world?
You're just stringing together random words and phrases in the mistaken belief that they make sense.
Exactly -- our new LEGAL immigrants from NE Asia, South Asia and even many from Africa, are exactly the high-IQ risk takers that help our nation.
But if these folks are all so bright, why aren't they importing people from all over the world to turn their homes into paradises? They're going to recreate their homelands in ours.
Both the "left" and the "right" in this country have come to an agreement on some common ground. That common ground is corporatism. (Or "libertarianism", as it prefers to call itself)
Once you adapt the view that America is just a very big corporation, there's no real reason why it should not "hire new employees" - bring in new people to replace the old ones who "management" dislike. The prefered criteria for these new employees are exactly those of corporate America - racial and ethnic diversity are high on the list of desirable qualities.
Once you adapt this corporatist view of things you end up asking the sort of question which MarAkin asks above. Because by this view of things, "America" is just another union which needs to be broken and it is out outage that people earn more here than anywhere else.
"Their public protestations to the contrary are just for show - you folks really need to learn to separate rhetoric from reality."
No I think a lot of these guys are True Believers. I've encountered many online. And in online forums people have no incentive to cover up their true feelings, unlike NYT columnists who like making a good living.
I think it's somewhere in between: self-deception. Some folks are masters at this. Basically, one attaches one's survival to a lie, so the lie becomes truth, the same way a "white lie" isn't a sin.
E.g., if, when you say "IQ/race does not exist," you're really saying "I'm going to do what it takes to survive," are you really lying? And when someone calls you on your statement that "IQ/race does not exist," but you hear "no, you're not going to survive," are you really going to be honest in defending your statement?
The best liars deceive themselves, and the champs have a whole belief system to enable lying.
I think Friedman makes a good point in that piece, but he's getting his stuff mixed up....
1.) The high-IQ innovative risk takers come from a small subset of a subset of our immigrant groups. They tend to be highly educated (ie Masters or Phd) graduates of selective technical institutions. Khosla, for example, is an IIT graduate and a recipient of a master's degree in biotech. They also highly disportionately come from Indian, Chinese, Taiwanese, English, Canadians, German, and Israeli immigrant backgrounds.
2.) The small business immigrants (motel, gas station, restaurant) and H-1B technology workers are not as innovative or elite as guys like Khosla. They're hardworking and productive, but very few of them are going to start the next Sun Microsystems or do anything Friedman would ever write about. Even within educated immigrant groups like Indians, there is a gradation in how much value the immigrants add to the economy. An IIT grad is much more likely to become a successful entrapranuer than a restauranter or mid end programmer.
3.) The mean IQ for many of our largest immigrant groups (Filipinos, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Latinos, Dominicans, Carribean and continental Africans) is something close to a standard deviation below the American mean. The same is largely true for the large Muslim and African immigrant groups in Europe.
Therefore, a case could be made to allow a small and highly selective group of highly educated immigrants with impressive degrees, work experience, and abilities. Unlike some here, I think we need to acknowledge that are some really capable people outside of America's borders and that we should consider letting in at least some of them, especially if they have a high potential to create jobs or contribute to serious technological innovation. Where I part company from Friedman is when he argues for letting in large numbers of h-1B workers and opening the borders to everybody. I don't see the value in letting in a huge number of moderate and low human capital immigrants when we could just skim the cream. The top end of the immigrant pyramid has made impressive contributions to our society, but the lower half unfortunately present some rather significant negative externalities.
My guess would be that we could probably cut the immigration intake to 50-100k per year and get all the people we needed.
and why, sir, do you feel entitled to be employed at your high wages when there are people who are just as productive as you who are willing to work for much less?
do you think it's appropriate for you to capture wages that would've been theirs in a free world?
Appropriate is one of those smarmy words that's I've grown to despise over the years. Feminists and the PC crowd wield it the way cops wield their truncheons, as in, "Do you really think that your attitude is appropriate?"
Now we've reached the point that Americans who merely want to keep their wages from sinking to Third World levels are guilty of having inappropriate attitudes.
MarAkin, at the rate things are going in this country, not too many years from now some asshole bureaucrat with a clipboard and a smug look is going to sidle up to you and say, “Do you really think it is appropriate that your child has that crust of bread to eat while other little boys and girls are going hungry?”
If that day comes, be sure to remember what you said here as you struggle to think of an appropriate response.
The high-IQ innovative risk takers come from a small subset of a subset of our immigrant groups. They tend to be highly educated (ie Masters or Phd) graduates of selective technical institutions. Khosla, for example, is an IIT graduate and a recipient of a master's degree in biotech. They also highly disportionately come from Indian, Chinese, Taiwanese, English, Canadians, German, and Israeli immigrant backgrounds.
These people are not "risk takers" by any sane understanding of the term.
They are also almost invariably in love with big government. That's probably their chief attraction to Friedman, who gives the impression that he fantasizes about the day the "smart" people implement a dictatorship in this country.
Therefore, a case could be made to allow a small and highly selective group of highly educated immigrants with impressive degrees, work experience, and abilities.
Therefore? The stuff you wrote before the "Therefore" certainly does not even attempt to make that case. If you feel like trying to make that case now, proceed to do so.
"I would say firms like Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns were reckless but not risk-taking. There is a difference. They were so powerful, so connected to the big boys in government, so cabalistic, and so cocooned in a world of their own that they thought they could get away with murder... and they did."
Goldman got away with it. Bear didn't.
I support an IQ test at the Mensa level for immigrants
No one below 130 IQ should be let in
he simply sounds like yet another jewish guy trying to take over something which smart white gentiles created from scratch. he goes into mental gymnastics mode, which every one of these jewish interlopers immediately go into, to explain why something which makes no sense, actually makes all the sense in the world. take yet another excellent, highly functional system established almost completely by white gentiles, and turn it over to other groups who never created anything like it, and who will ruin it, pervert it, or run it into the ground. anybody who objects is totally wrong and can't see the awesome potential of handing over control and letting themselves be demographically outnumbered.
flood the united states with a billion people from every nation in the world. that's what built it in the first place, isn't it? a jumble of completely dissimilar people with conflicting agendas, plans, and loyalties? they'll magically all decide they have common goals once they cross the border into the united states, as we can plainly see by how well the different groups work together in 2010.
i've never understood why there is a segment of the jewish population which so strongly feels the need to do this kind of stuff, but they're real and a tremendous detriment to any country which lets them have an unopposed voice, which they have in america today.
I disagree. Successful people don't need to move to another country. It is the less successful ones who tend to do so.
You'd never guess the semi-conductor and integrated circuit were invented by farm boys from the Mid-west.
"Tom Friedman repeats phrase "High I.Q. risk-takers" 8 times"
Credit when credit is due. Marrying peniless Soledad and agreeing to formally adopt her seven children from...very diverse fathers... was the right thing to do.
Liberals never make any sense. They always we must care about the rest of the world and help poor nations. They need our help and support. But then, liberals say we should take the best and brightest from those nations, draining them of intellectual talent. Wow, what a great way to help poor and backward nations!!!
Any thoughts on the Chinese love of gambling and how that will influence the country's development?
"If that day comes, be sure to remember what you said here as you struggle to think of an appropriate response."
I love kudzu bob.
What is the appropriate thing to say when they come to appropriate my property?
"Once you adapt the view that America is just a very big corporation, there's no real reason why it should not "hire new employees" - bring in new people to replace the old ones who "management" dislike."
No need to bring in the new if there are plenty here, but there aren't. There are no groups of any color in the USA who have both an IQ over 100 and a fertility rate over 2.0. I wish that weren't so. Unfortunately it is. We all want to know what we can say or do politely to get the low functioning to slow down reproduction so that the brighter bulbs will eventually outnumber them. So far we just put up with each other until that mother necessity pushes us. Often that push has been to wars of attrition where the low functioning meet a brutal end. Again, I wish it weren't so. I think we would all like to avoid it.
Yes. I was wrong to use the term "risk takers."
I would argue that a small, highly select group of highly educated immigrants is beneficial for our economy. Quite a bit of the important R&D in science, technology, and engineering in this country is done by people of foreign nationalities. I personally think if a bright and capable PHD immigrant helps create a new drug or pioneers a quickly growing upstart, that's good for America. We should welcome those type of people.
Immigration becomes more controversial when you start bringing over people whose value-added contribution isn't particularly unique or significant, such as restauranters or common technology workers. I wouldn't knock them as people and I recognize that they are productive residents, but I don't think the U.S. neccessarily needs them to stay on top. These people are useful to the economy, but not essential. The bulk of Indian and Chinese immigrants would fall in this category.
The real problems come in when we start dealing with uneducated immigrants from Africa, the Carribean, Latin America, Mexico, and the Mid East. These people aren't particularly dynamic or entrpranuerial, experience quite a bit of social dysfunction, and tend to be economically and socially underperforming.
"only serves to make the problem permanent"
Nah. Mere engineering problem. My high-IQ non-immigrant son is building a trebuchet in physics club --
-- er, uh, no, no, I didn't mean it the way it sounded, really -- uh --
"I think we need to acknowledge that are some really capable people outside of America's borders and that we should consider letting in at least some of them, especially if they have a high potential to create jobs or contribute to serious technological innovation."
Okay. Yes, let's. Let's let in all the White citizens of Zimbabwe and South Africa, and only the White citizens of Zimbabwe and South Africa. Christiaan Bernard pioneered heart transplants. Now, there's some innovation for ya.
No need to bring in the new if there are plenty here, but there aren't. There are no groups of any color in the USA who have both an IQ over 100 and a fertility rate over 2.0.
So what? There are no such groups anywhere else in the world either.
It's not governments job to manipulate the national IQ average by fiddling with immigration.
We all want to know what we can say or do politely to get the low functioning to slow down reproduction so that the brighter bulbs will eventually outnumber them.
Whatever the merits of that idea (and the really high IQ people would doubtless want you and the rest of us here to stop reproducing), altering immigaton into the US does not help you attain that goal. Unless you want the US to be a high IQ island in a worldwide sea of stupidity. Some people actually do seem to want that for some reason.
But their reasons seem to boil down to wanting Americorp to beat China Inc or Euro PLC. I confess the totality of my indifference as to who "wins" such an absurd contest.
What has tom friedman been right about? If he said the sun rose in the east, based on his record, i'd start checking...
Does he ever fathom that 'high iq' 'risk takers' might also have no regard for the consequences of their risks on the host country/population? Who makes long term investments and creates cushions for when risks go bad. How many of Friedman's dynamic, mercurian high iq so much better than we anglo-saxon immigrants have say, set aside land and given it to the nature conservancy?
There are no groups of any color in the USA who have both an IQ over 100 and a fertility rate over 2.0.
Well, depending upon your definition of "group", there is some evidence that GOP Caucasian fertility rates are at about 2.08 [whereas DEM Caucasian fertility rates are at about 1.47]:
Republicans' fertile future
By Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer
September 17, 2006
articles.sfgate.com
You might also read these articles:
Power and the evangelical womb
By Spengler
Nov 9, 2004
atimes.com
The Baby Gap: Explaining Red and Blue
by Steve Sailer
December 20, 2004
isteve.com
Anonymous said: "'If that day comes, be sure to remember what you said here as you struggle to think of an appropriate response.'
I love kudzu bob.
What is the appropriate thing to say when they come to appropriate my property?"
Surely that's a rhetorical question. In that situation, the only appropriate response is non-verbal.
By the way, I share kudzu bob's loathing for the smarmy adjective "appropriate" and also loathe the noun "concerns" as in "I have some concerns about how appropriate your behavior is". Those two words, among others, are red flags to me in more ways than one.
Anonymous said ...
I wanted to leave a comment on Friedman's column saying that I'd be happy to accept more high IQ immigrants in exchange for cutting the number of immigrants with low and average IQs, but comments for the column weren't enabled.
Many news stories and opinions in the NY Times now have no comment section, I wonder why?
Is it because its embarrassing for America's 'All the News that's Fit to Print' newspaper to be out-researched and out-written by articulate, quick witted readers crafting stunning neologisms?
Or to increase his papers editorial monopoly the publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger has had comments turned off, knowing that like slaves who were taught to read, but not write, his readers accept editorial opinions uncritically?
Or perhaps the NY Times is not a 'risk taker'.
"What made America this incredible engine of prosperity? It was immigration, plus free markets."
Do immigration and free markets CREATE high-IQ people, through an alchemy-like process of acculturation?
Well, substitute "no restrictions" for "immigration and free markets" (that's the definition of immigration and free markets from the current elite's perspective, as against a lawful national setup). Now ask yourself: Is it the absence of restrictions that creates IQ? When I say "creates," I mean "originates in the first place."
Of course not, no.
Give a lot of retards free rein, and all you'll get is crime and grafitti and AIDS.
Intelligent people require freedom to create. But there have to be intelligent people FIRST. Unfortunately, we're stocking up on the other kind of people - thanks to policies whooped along by the likes of Tom.
Tom is a shill for the worldview of people like Madoff. They are the flat-world people turning their wondrous creativity into billions in a restrictionless world. They love that worldview. It prospers them. It feels natural and right to Tom. For the rest of us, not so much. The point of view of the rat is different from that of the farmer.
Has anyone noticed that the personal computer revolution was started by baby-boomers who faced just about zero immigrant competition -- either in school or well into the first half of their careers? Yet the Balmers and Gates of the world want to saddle their equivalents today with millions of H1-Bs.
"repeats phrase eight times"
This is a desperate attempt to make the phrase catch on. Friedman has serious (Tom) Wolfe-envy. Think: "masters of the universe", "the right stuff" or "social x-ray". Wolfe even reruns "the girl with the brown lipsick".
Newt Gingrich has something related.
http://blog.american.com/?p=4488
"While visiting Asia and witnessing the dynamic entrepreneurial and high-tech business culture in Toyko, Beijing, and Seoul, I was reminded of how critically important it is for America to reform H-1B visas to make our country more accessible to highly skilled immigrants.
Reform in this area would be particularly helpful for America’s high-tech companies. A recent post by Vivek Wadhwa, a visiting scholar at Berkeley and an immigrant himself, shows that one-quarter of all “technology and engineering start-ups” have immigrant founders. In Silicon Valley, over half of these start-up companies were founded by immigrants.
Wadhwa also points to the drive in innovation from immigrants. Of all the patents filed on behalf of companies such as Merck, GE, and Cisco, immigrants make up well over the majority of authors.
H-1B visas would lead to more jobs and more growth. As some policy officials call for another stimulus, they should look to H-1B visa reform as a cheaper and more effective stimulus for economic growth. You can read more of my reflections from our trip to Asia in my newsletter, here."
------------------
My responses:
1) Vivek Wadhwa is a twice failed entrepreneur. His last venture was sold for far less than invested capital.
Wadhwa's "polls" are famously unscientific. He's a shill for Indian body shops and outsourcers.
2) Newt's Asian observation could have been, "While visiting Asia, I noticed successful cultures are not diverse."
3) Anyone in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) will tell you the business desire to hire H1Bs is not that there a lack of American talent. It's about importing cheaper labor.
"Tom Friedman repeats phrase "High I.Q. risk-takers" 8 times"
Yeah, whatever happened to good old-fashioned "vibrant"? Geo Bush said we need people because they are vibrant. There was none of this "high I.Q." stuff. When the L.A. Times notes that Panorama City is becoming increasingly vibrant in recent years, everybody knows what that means, except the Times writer. But if they tell me some neighborhood is "populated by risk takers" frankly I don't know whether to rent there or not.
It must be said that in the past, it was indeed a great adventure, journey, and a change of life to come to America. For people to leave everything--family, tradition, community, etc--behind and seek a new life in America must have been a big deal.
Today, anyone can hop on an airplane and fly here in a matter of hours. And, they can stay connected to family via cell phone and other means. So, it's not like one's really leaving home and taking a great risk with the unknown. Besides, many other parts of the world have already been Americanized with record shops, McDonalds, KFC, movie theaters, etc. so that's it's much easier to adapt to modern America for many immigrants. Also, back in the old days, coming
to America meant a long long journey by ship in the old days. It meant you were coming to accept a wholly new life. Now, immigrants come and go and come and go and etc as they wish anytime they want. They are not really taking any risk because they know they can go back anytime(and then return with more relatives).
Also in the past, US offered no welfare and other benefits, so immigrants knew they had to come and work. Even immigrants without naturally high IQ or risk-taking skills were forced to adapt and take risks in order to make it.
Today, immigrants--even illegals--are showered with benefits and welfare. So, people are no longer coming for risks but for benefits. Of course, smart people still come to succeed in America, but many dumb people come for benefits and security.
Friedman talks out of his arse. His mind is flat.
It must be said that in the past, it was indeed a great adventure, journey, and a change of life to come to America. For people to leave everything--family, tradition, community, etc--behind and seek a new life in America must have been a big deal.
No doubt it was a great adventure, journey, big deal, etc. It was not that big a risk however. People were leaving countries with low median incomes to come to a country with a high median income. They had a very resonable expectation that they'd be better off finanically simply by living in America. Those are the sort of people who came here from 1860 - 1960.
Speaking of "High I.Q. risk-takers":
"CBS NEWS has learned that former AIG executive Joseph Cassano - the prime focus of the investigation into its collapse - will meet with Department of Justice attorneys next week in what will likely be an end to the two year criminal investigation into the company."
"Sources tell CBS News that the criminal case against Cassano - once called "the Man who Crashed the World" - has "hit a brick wall" - meaning that it is likely no one will be held criminally liable for the downfall of the company that triggered a $182 billion dollar federal bailout. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20001705-10391695.html
No one below 130 IQ should be let in
Disparate impact! Disparate impact!
"No one below 130 IQ should be let in"
Imagine the TITANIC shift in America if that were to happen; there would suddenly be a flood of H1-b's from India and China.
"Anonymous said...
Newt Gingrich has something related.
http://blog.american.com/?p=4488"
Thanks for posting. In your responses you might have added: "Newt Gingrich is a slimy little wiener and a traitorous swine."
Imagine the TITANIC shift in America if that were to happen; there would suddenly be a flood of H1-b's from India and China.
Careful T, I think your pinky toe just slipped off the reservation.
"Careful T, I think your pinky toe just slipped off the reservation."
That was satire, Svigor. Obviously, one of the things you guys complain about now is the High-IQ Indians and Chinese programmers "taking" jobs from white guys.
Point being, there would be little change at all.
It's columnists like Tom Friedman and David Brooks who make me believe that there really must be a Jewish plot to control the world. Any goy writers of their quality would be relegated to the Op/Ed page of some mid-sized city paper to provide "local flavor."
The two are complete hacks.
Oh, and how are the Bucksbaum's doing?
"High IQ "risk takers" like the ones on Wall Street who crashed the world economy. Of course, they got their bonuses so there was little actual risk to them involved."
I couldn't understand the awards for collosal failure and theft until I listened to Catherine Austin Fitts on the subject. The Wall Street gangster were not awarded for failure. They succeeded at what they were told to do.
She explained that the "housing bubble" took years to foment, starting in 1994, when she was at HUD (and hounded out by the government because she was trying to blow the whistle on fraud.) Austin Fitts (now of her own company, Solaris) says the Wall Street thieves were basically rewarded because they did what they were commissioned to do.
The idea that all of government is of the people and for the people is really one of things we have to admit is not the case. Surely people on this blog know that.
there is a little tension in the idea we should want more high IQ immigrants...given that our cognitive elite has been mostly responsible for trashing this country
guys you think these high IQ immigrants are going to give a damn about restoring a functioning society? think again, they will mostly listen to NPR and read the NYT and their views will be what their respectable, smart peers believe...high IQ does NOT correlate highly with wisdom or humility, despite what you've read
we need to 1) stop immigration, 2) deport as many illegals as possible, 3) end birthright marriage FOR STARTERS
Yes, risk taking in law breaking, maybe. Just like the Chinese in my city who committed some of the most horrid crimes - one murdered another one, chopped him up and cooked him. Yummy for the most awful homicide in the history of my city. And Chinese have high IQ compared to the Mestizo immigrants that the US gets. I really wonder since these people believe in the farce of economy based on ideas - why do you allow any immigrant who doesn't have an IQ above 130?
The biggest problem though is that these people don't realize that a country isn't just some piece of land on which people just move about. But again, the fallacy of the proposition nation reigns supreme.
RandyB, the problem with immigration from Mexico can be solved simply. You can make illegal immigration a criminal offense, punishable by jail and barring from ever immigrating legally and stop giving citizenship to babies that don't have a parent that is a citizen. Then pull out of Iraq and put the troops on the border and shoot everybody who tries to pass over illegally. You can't fix another country, you can just make it your colony and rule it.
And this guy is an idiot who doesn't get economics. Yes, jobs come from small businesses expanding, but in order to have job creation you need SAVINGS! A 3% savings rate after a decade of negative savings rate and a government that spends almost twice as what it cashes in and that has over 80 trillion of unfunded liabilities isn't going to cut it. No matter who moves in the US, provided saving your money not coming back in fashion, the economy will just implode in the coming years.
About birth rates, fixing them wouldn't be that hard provided certain things changed, but I find it funny that people say it's ok because GOP white voters have a replacement fertility rate. Just suppose that one out of three of those kids will become a liberal. Case closed.
Post a Comment