tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4881844011312957940..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Schools and neighborhoodsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81796856424812227942007-08-27T14:34:00.000-07:002007-08-27T14:34:00.000-07:00Me: Again, though, it's imperative that you be suf...<B>Me:</B> <I>Again, though, it's imperative that you be sufficiently intellectually honest with yourself to be able to arrive at the point [intellectually] where you can at least <B>CONSIDER</B> the possiblity that it wouldn't do any good - that if you were to grab a bunch of these IQ-80-ish & IQ-70-ish nitwits off the street, and set them down in the library - that none of them would even get up out of their seats, walk over & take a book off the shelf, and start reading it - that instead they would spend their time scrawling graffiti all over the walls, and breaking the windows, and leaving urine & bowel movements in every little corner of the building EXCEPT [of course] for the urinals & the commodes themselves.<BR/><BR/>[Well, I suppose that if they were smart enough to figure out that they could light the books on fire, then they might call up their posses for a big bonfire - BYO Thunderbird.]</I><BR/><BR/>Ha.<BR/><BR/>Look at what I just stumbled upon, in <A HREF="http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=623" REL="nofollow">an old Theodore Dalrymple essay</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>...I saw the revolt against civilization and the restraints and frustrations it entails in many countries, but nowhere more starkly than in Liberia in the midst of the civil war there. I arrived in Monrovia when there was no longer any electricity or running water; no shops, no banks, no telephones, no post office; no schools, no transport, no clinics, no hospitals. Almost every building had been destroyed in whole or in part: and what had not been destroyed had been looted.<BR/><BR/>I inspected the remains of the public institutions. They had been destroyed with a thoroughness that could not have been the result of mere military conflict. Every last piece of equipment in the hospitals (which had long since been emptied of staff and patients) had been laboriously disassembled beyond hope of repair or use. Every wheel had been severed by metal cutters from every trolley, cut at the cost of what must have been a very considerable effort. It was as if a horde of people with terrible experiences of hospitals, doctors, and medicine had passed through to exact their revenge.<BR/><BR/>But this was not the explanation, because every other institution had undergone similar destruction. <B>The books in the university library had been one and all—without exception—pulled from the shelves and piled into contemptuous heaps, many with pages torn from them or their spines deliberately broken.</B> It was the revenge of barbarians upon civilization, and of the powerless upon the powerful, or at least upon what they perceived as the source of their power. Ignorance revolted against knowledge, for the same reasons that my brother and I smashed the radio all those years before. Could there have been a clearer indication of hatred of the lower for the higher?<BR/><BR/>In fact there was—and not very far away, in a building called the Centennial Hall, where the inauguration ceremonies of the presidents of Liberia took place. The hall was empty now, except for the busts of former presidents, some of them overturned, around the walls—and a Steinway grand piano, probably the only instrument of its kind in the entire country, two-thirds of the way into the hall. The piano, however, was not intact: its legs had been sawed off (though they were by design removable) and the body of the piano laid on the ground, like a stranded whale. Around it were disposed not only the sawed-off legs, but little piles of human feces.<BR/><BR/>I had never seen a more graphic rejection of human refinement. I tried to imagine other possible meanings of the scene but could not. Of course, the piano represented a culture that was not fully Liberia's own and had not been assimilated fully by everyone in the country: but that the piano represented not just a particular culture but the very idea of civilization itself was obvious in the very coarseness of the gesture of contempt...</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15920370786711697282007-08-22T23:15:00.000-07:002007-08-22T23:15:00.000-07:00Well well, Anonymous. I suppose you're right: what...Well well, Anonymous. I suppose you're right: what is fundamentally needed is not the books but the smart people who read/write books.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I was not produced (born) in that stupid rural community. Any environmental good influences were the books I read and a few TV and radio shows. Thank goodness they were there.<BR/><BR/>I believe neither of us advocates more RIF for the hollers or the ghettos at govt. expense, though. (I don't advocate NPR, I just enjoy being a free rider while it lasts.)<BR/><BR/>You are not comprehensive in your explanation of stupidity when you dismiss TV. The types who won't open a book unless it's placed in their laps are now also the people who will not look at any screen unless the shot changes every 2 seconds (this has been measured, and it isn't just children) and/or a highly contrasting sound such as a burst of music, the "f word," or a gasoline explosion occurs on the soundtrack. I make films and observe that more people have no attention span. Not a short span - no span, like a cat with nothing to eat, torture, or hunt. (Look at one sometime.) Any shot lasting 2+ seconds without explosions or pumped-up music is "deadly" intrinsically, for all practical purposes. (My films win awards. So, uh, it's not that.) Observe the constant shaking of the camera and the little gratuitous zooms.<BR/><BR/>The drooling darlings also need pumped-up colors. Broadcast TV used to have saturation standards; no more. A red shirt now becomes a fragment from Betelgeuse's inner core. Grass isn't green - it's retina-destroying neon-emerald. Break off the brightness knob; otherwise dummy might get to staring at his food or his navel again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-64807415978355228512007-08-21T22:16:00.000-07:002007-08-21T22:16:00.000-07:00David: Anonymous, I take your point and largely ag...<B>David:</B> <I>Anonymous, I take your point and largely agree with you. I'm speaking only as someone who grew up in a stupid rural community and was intellectually "saved" by seeking out better material. Thank God it was there!</I><BR/><BR/>I think we're in agreement again.<BR/><BR/>I said that you have to consider that it's the man who makes the books, which is precisely what you did - you sought them out.<BR/><BR/>But with <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901841.html" REL="nofollow">huge swaths of the population</A>, you have to consider the possibility that NOTHING will do any good - that if you literally place the books in their laps, then they still won't bother to open them.<BR/><BR/>To get them to read, you'd have to set up a totalitarian system the likes of which even Joseph Stalin never contemplated - you'd need literally a 1-1 pairing of "IQ greater than 100" people with "IQ less than 100" people, where the "IQ greater than 100" people were armed with whips and chains and electric cattle prods, and they beat and shocked the "IQ less than 100 people" if they looked up from their books.<BR/><BR/>But even that might not do any good - somehow you'd have to test them to see if they were actually reading, and not just faking it.<BR/><BR/>So the "IQ greater than 100" people would spend half their days beating and torturing the "IQ less than 100" people, and the other half of their days writing, administering and grading the exams they demanded of the "IQ less than 100" people.<BR/><BR/>It gets to a point where you realize the whole thing is insanity and that maybe you ought to just let people be people, and if the stupid ones want to watch Oprah and play video games and download pr0n all day, then, well, there's not a heckuva lot you can do about it.<BR/><BR/>Other than encouraging the smart ones to make as many babies as is humanly possible, if for no other reason than to keep the great ship of state from sinking to the bottom of the ocean.<BR/><BR/>PS: I bet that someday you'll come to the conclusion that that "stupid rural community" was a lot smarter than you gave it credit for.<BR/><BR/>After all, it produced you, didn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16729187487221844292007-08-21T06:59:00.000-07:002007-08-21T06:59:00.000-07:00Anon. 8/17/2007 11:40 AM said: In fact the only cl...Anon. 8/17/2007 11:40 AM said: <BR/><BR/><I>In fact the only claim to fame that might be left to the white male is a higher percentage of serial killers among the population...</I><BR/><BR/>And Anon. 8/17/2007 12:16 PM said:<BR/><BR/><I>because [blacks' and Hispanics'] bell curves fall off so sharply, they lack the profoundly devious wickedness necessary to become something like a Hannibal Lecter.</I><BR/><BR/>False, gentlemen.<BR/><BR/>"The Boston Globe contributes to the discussion about the number of black serial killers with this information: <BR/><BR/>"Eric Hickey, a professor of criminal psychology who has collected data on 399 serial killers from 1800 to 1995, said while the majority of them have been white, blacks represent 22 percent of the cases, while they make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population. <BR/><BR/>"'Blacks actually are overrepresented among serial killers,' said Hickey, who teaches at California State University at Fresno."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.maynardije.org/columns/dickprince/021028_prince/" REL="nofollow">Link</A> (scroll down).<BR/><BR/>This is pretty well-known among <A HREF="http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/02/a_miniinterview_with_dr_helen.php" REL="nofollow">experts</A> (scroll down), but rarely mentioned - for obvious reasons.<BR/><BR/>Gentlemen, do your empirical research prior to formulating your theories. That goes for you, too, Griffy, old boy.<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/05/14/christian-newsom-murders-media/" REL="nofollow">recent</A> atrocity. Not a word about it. (Dwelling on it wouldn't promote the home team of integration and diversity.) So, who will look into how many others these beasts maybe killed more discreetly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6774651525989664632007-08-21T06:22:00.000-07:002007-08-21T06:22:00.000-07:00Anonymous, I take your point and largely agree wit...Anonymous, I take your point and largely agree with you. I'm speaking only as someone who grew up in a stupid rural community and was intellectually "saved" by seeking out better material. Thank God it was there!<BR/><BR/>In certain populations, such things as public libraries, public education, state funding for the arts, etc. are viable. Mostly in Europe.<BR/><BR/>The point being, though these things are certainly dysfunctional here, some of the people who can truly benefit from them are still around. Don't forget us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12997773965007539612007-08-20T11:44:00.000-07:002007-08-20T11:44:00.000-07:00David: In many places (e.g. rural "Amurica") all t...<B>David:</B> <I>In many places (e.g. rural "Amurica") all that's available is dreck. Cable TV, porn, and the Bible... Some intelligent stuff is on NPR, occasionally.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, first off, dude, if you really think, in your heart of hearts, that the Bible is "dreck", and that National Pubic Radio is "intelligent", then we're wasting our time talking to each other.<BR/><BR/><B>David:</B> <I>"Big Mama," Beyonce, Cedric the Entertainer, Jeff Foxworthy, and Fox News... The Simpsons... a few elite... determine MSM content... the MSM</I><BR/><BR/>Dude, you're talking about TELEVISION. I'm talking about READING BOOKS.<BR/><BR/>Television necessarily stupidifies people.<BR/><BR/>And while reading books does not necessarily enlighten people [there are plenty of books out there which were intentionally designed to turn your soul into an empty, coal-black vessel, primed to be filled with evil], on the other hand, reading books does not necessarily stupidify you the way that watching television does.<BR/><BR/><B>David:</B> <I>A young mind can starve in America. Young minds *are* starving in America... If the pearls aren't made available, all you will end up with is swine.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, though, it's imperative that you be sufficiently intellectually honest with yourself to be able to arrive at the point [intellectually] where you can at least <B>CONSIDER</B> the possiblity that it wouldn't do any good - that if you were to grab a bunch of these IQ-80-ish & IQ-70-ish nitwits off the street, and set them down in the library - that none of them would even get up out of their seats, walk over & take a book off the shelf, and start reading it - that instead they would spend their time scrawling graffiti all over the walls, and breaking the windows, and leaving urine & bowel movements in every little corner of the building EXCEPT [of course] for the urinals & the commodes themselves.<BR/><BR/>[Well, I suppose that if they were smart enough to figure out that they could light the books on fire, then they might call up their posses for a big bonfire - BYO Thunderbird.]<BR/><BR/>I.e. at some point you have to consider the possiblity that it isn't the books which make the man, but rather it's the man which makes the books.<BR/><BR/>PS: If you think that I'm delusional, then spend an afternoon reading all the stories documented at <A HREF="http://www.detroityes.com/home.htm" REL="nofollow">THE FABULOUS RUINS OF DETROIT</A>.<BR/><BR/>Or treat yourself to Theodore Dalrymple's <A HREF="http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=830" REL="nofollow">Why Havana Had to Die</A>.<BR/><BR/>Or skim through Andrew Anthony's <I><B>The Day Reality Hit Home</B></I> [<A HREF="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330595508-102280,00.html" REL="nofollow">Part I</A>, <A HREF="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330595510-102280,00.html" REL="nofollow">Part II</A>, <A HREF="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330595511-102280,00.html" REL="nofollow">Part III</A>].<BR/><BR/>Or, if you really love TV all that much, then watch <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j0n4-i0T4I" REL="nofollow">Chav on the bus</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23272805566430172912007-08-19T22:31:00.000-07:002007-08-19T22:31:00.000-07:00Hey, I’m conspiratorial as the next guy, but I fir...Hey, I’m conspiratorial as the next guy, but I firmly believe in markets and the ruthless efficiency of capitalism. If there were a real and substantial unmet demand for intellectually stimulating MSM that someone could profit off of you’d see that niche filled PDQ.<BR/><BR/>I do agree there is a MSM bias in appealing to baser instincts in part as a reflection of the nihilistic morality of our elite and how they stereotype the lumpen. However, the battle of popular tastes you image was long ago decided in the marketplace when D.W. Griffith and Louis B. Mayer provided the public with entirely different cultural fare options. The public have been voting with their feet and dollars since.<BR/><BR/>- JANAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28182795311845850822007-08-19T14:26:00.000-07:002007-08-19T14:26:00.000-07:00"all I can think is 'Pearls before swine'"Well, le..."all I can think is 'Pearls before swine'"<BR/><BR/>Well, let's make sure the non-swine have some pearls around to choose from. In many places (e.g. rural "Amurica") all that's available is dreck. Cable TV, porn, and the Bible.<BR/><BR/>The major media of yesteryear (the old-line movie studios and early TV, plus radio) had what today would be considered highbrow elements. Shakespeare movies, literary adaptations of more modern classics, etc. Things of that type were common. (Though at the time, the real highbrows decried it as vulgar.)<BR/><BR/>Since then, a downward slide. Some intelligent stuff is on NPR, occasionally. But what else? It's almost exclusively "Big Mama," Beyonce, Cedric the Entertainer, Jeff Foxworthy, and Fox News that's echoing in the hinterlands of Flyover - and everywhere else, too.<BR/><BR/>No wonder commentators now wax over the unique "intelligence" and "social satire" of...The Simpsons. (!)<BR/><BR/>Just giving the customers what they demand? No. By and large, people take what's given, especially if it's given insistently and exclusively. Only a few elite are in a position to determine MSM content. And what we have (rampant perversity and stupidity) is what these people want to provide, period. You're supposed to adjust to it. Most do.<BR/><BR/>A young mind can starve in America. Young minds *are* starving in America.<BR/><BR/>The only rescue for many is the internet. An alternative to the MSM and its relentless "dumb 'em down and keep 'em dumb" agenda.<BR/><BR/>If the pearls aren't made available, all you will end up with is swine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80234729139047320692007-08-19T09:46:00.000-07:002007-08-19T09:46:00.000-07:00It's the families! Period-- and the families are t...<I>It's the families! Period-- and the families are the culture.</I><BR/><BR/>Look, I can't stand these chicken -v- egg quarrels, but you people who say that "culture" [which I guess amounts to whether or not the kids are "allowed" to watch TV -vs- being "forced" to read books] determines "excellence in education" [which, in turn, I guess, is supposed to have some beneficial effect on gray matter], really ought to try to be sufficiently intellectually honest with yourselves to at least <I><B>CONSIDER</B></I> the possibility that the causality actually flows in the opposite direction: Namely, that, by and large, gray matter tends to bring about an interest in education which in turn leads to a desire to read [rather than merely watching TV & playing video games all day long].<BR/><BR/>Every time I hear this stuff about "if only we could get them to read" or "if only we could get some books into their homes" or "if only there were more <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2VqFPNS8w" REL="nofollow">public service announcements begging and pleading with them to read books</A>" or "if only we could build some museums in their neighborhoods" or "if only we could get them to listen to Mozart instead of P Diddly" or "if only blah blah blah yada yada yada whatever", all I can think is "Pearls before swine, pearls before swine..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53575509775387350542007-08-18T16:20:00.000-07:002007-08-18T16:20:00.000-07:00Toadal's earlier comment is right. It's staring u...Toadal's earlier comment is right. It's staring us in the face-- the Asia-Pacific people have the standards. It's the families! Period-- and the families are the culture. Change it and you change everything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83163274776213836242007-08-18T07:45:00.000-07:002007-08-18T07:45:00.000-07:00Why do people always cite La Griffe about Asian vs...Why do people always cite La Griffe about Asian vs European IQ variances? La Griffe himself notes (see earlier comment) that what is shown in his Fig. 4 is *not* in agreement with actual data. Please read for comprehension!<BR/><BR/>If you want actual data, look at SAT scores, which show a *larger* variance for Asians than for non-Hispanic whites. Admittedly, this lumps together all subgroups of Asians, but I have never seen any data supporting a lower variance for NE Asian IQs. <BR/><BR/>BTW, on another canard originating from La Griffe: the Asian SAT verbal average is just a few points below that for whites, and it includes scores from recent immigrant test takers and others for whom English is not their first language. The gap is much less than a standard deviation, suggesting that the Asian verbal IQ mght actually be higher than that of non-Hspanic whites.<BR/><BR/>If you look at the kids who score top 10 in the US on the extremely hard USAMO (Mathematical Olympiad exams) and go on to represent the US in international composition, you will find that typically half or so are NE Asian -- despite the fact that Asians are only 4% of the total population. There is no evidence that the far tail in IQ is predominantly occupied by Europeans. Quite the opposite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89483616694193603562007-08-18T01:08:00.000-07:002007-08-18T01:08:00.000-07:00Well, in the case of "East" Asians, take a look at...<I>Well, in the case of "East" Asians, take a look at Figure 4 </I><BR/><BR/>Which is speculative and dismissed thus:<BR/><BR/><B>An Asian distribution with a standard deviation 39 % of the white brings the two smart fractions into coincidence. An even narrower distribution would be required to explain the Lynn-Vanhanen data. Either way, there is no evidence to support such a difference in spread. I'm afraid we will have to look elsewhere for an explanation.</B><BR/><BR/>For the great frequency with which the narrower IQ bell curve for East Asians is tossed about as fact, you'd think someone would be able produce some hard data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6940200674701597172007-08-17T18:30:00.000-07:002007-08-17T18:30:00.000-07:00Steve -- had a chance to look at the California t...Steve -- had a chance to look at the California test scores yet?<BR/><BR/> http://star.cde.ca.gov/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30161659439955961332007-08-17T15:41:00.000-07:002007-08-17T15:41:00.000-07:00Almost every time people see my children, since my...<I>Almost every time people see my children, since my fourth child, I'm asked if I homeschool. I do... We are in that small percentage that Murray writes about who have I.Q.s above 130 but no college degree.</I><BR/><BR/>Got any sisters who are still single?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45031711040349820482007-08-17T11:48:00.000-07:002007-08-17T11:48:00.000-07:00"I suppose he could have gotten a comparable job a..."I suppose he could have gotten a comparable job a few years earlier if he'd gone to college, but it wasn't worth it to him to put his love life on hold AND have a lot more debt. <BR/><BR/>We are in that small percentage that Murray writes about who have I.Q.s above 130 but no college degree."<BR/><BR/>I smell some pro-military propaganda. What would happen if 130+IQ hubby got killed in action? Oh that's right, unlike everyone else, he can't be dragged back to Iraq.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37858393236158968352007-08-17T11:40:00.000-07:002007-08-17T11:40:00.000-07:00"Lumping all Asians together is even distorting th..."Lumping all Asians together is even distorting than lumping Hispanics with Europeans as “White” when booking criminals. NE Asians like the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese (from most law abiding to least excluding white collar crimes like tax evasion which can be rampant in ethnic enclaves) are a far cry from other Asians like the Polynesians, Vietnamese, Hmong, Pakistanis (called Asian in the UK) where drugs, gangs, violent crime, domestic abuse, home invasions, etc are big problems."<BR/><BR/>First of all, Pakistainis are not thought of as Asian in the US. The fact of the matter is that Americans do lump all the Asians together. The belief that all Asians are smarter, more law abiding and more moral permeates our schools and our blogs. Now that we're seeing that even the Koreans (Cho & a guy who attempted to commit an act of violence against me) are capable of violent crime, maybe we'll begin to see Asians as human. The problem with statistics is that they are from the past. When circumstances change, they can blind us to reality and/danger that is right under our noses. It looks like the high performing Asians may have distorted the statistics for Asians as a group anyway. <BR/><BR/>What we'll see in years to come is that the much maligned white male isn't the only male capable of extremely pathological behavior. Asians (Hispanics, too) from various backgrounds are demonstrating they are equally capable of being child molesters and mass murderers. In fact the only claim to fame that might be left to the white male is a higher percentage of serial killers among the population...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70747379690896608872007-08-17T07:52:00.000-07:002007-08-17T07:52:00.000-07:00Toadal Apologies for my mistake, the links below t...<B>Toadal</B> Apologies for my mistake, the links below to the commentary section at sfgate.com do work (sfgate.com showed a “comments for this article are disabled” message when I accidently left off the last letter of the hyperlink). <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/08/15/MNI1RHSRG.DTL" REL="nofollow"> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/08/15/MNI1RHSRG.DTL</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/08/16/MNQIRII2L.DTL" REL="nofollow">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/08/16/MNQIRII2L.DTL</A><BR/><BR/>The comments to these articles are an interesting sample of how public opinion may be shifting away from the elite’s MSM PC orthodoxy. I was as much shocked by the absence of truthspeak defenders as by the presence of many comments on the kings lack of clothing (in a San Francisco paper no less).<BR/><BR/>I especially liked the comments noting how Asians (immigrants often even more disadvantaged than native-born Blacks/Hispanics) are ignored as people of color because they undermined the idea of systematic non-White victimization in an irredeemably racists system. Or as someone wrote: “Asians aren't people of color because they do well?” <BR/><BR/>It’s clear that the Internet and blog thing is going to have to be more strongly regulated via hate speech, speech codes and public shaming/shoutdowns via some form of reduction ad Hilterum. The commentators at sfgate.com are way off message, emboldening other strays and making PC advocates/idea look silly in the naked unstaged forum of words, reason and ideas. <BR/><BR/>- JANAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5691439791610622352007-08-17T04:48:00.000-07:002007-08-17T04:48:00.000-07:00My impression here in London is that having childr...My impression here in London is that having children is now seen as a status symbol by the white upper middle class; because children are now extremely expensive you have to be wealthy to be able to afford to do it - it's a peacock's tail phenomena. It distinguishes them from the middle class, who can't afford more than 1-2 kids. And they're not in competition with the underclass whose children are state-supported. -SNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52941932390229885352007-08-16T21:24:00.000-07:002007-08-16T21:24:00.000-07:00JAN said ...Toadal – sfgate.com shut down the comm...<B>JAN said ...</B><BR/><I>Toadal – sfgate.com shut down the comments section to the article you cited. Words can hurt and ideas are dangerous – probably too many of both caused them to delete the comments and contact the appropriate authorities.</I><BR/><BR/> To <B>Very, very depressing - JAN </B><BR/><BR/>The sfgate.com comment section for the article remains available and the TheTree's comment remains up.<BR/><BR/>Today the SF Chronicle published a very similar article: <B>"Children of color being left behind"</B> whose readers have left comments that mirror TheTree in many respects.<BR/><BR/>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/08/16/MNQIRII2L.DTLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31572709233948215232007-08-16T19:22:00.000-07:002007-08-16T19:22:00.000-07:00Baby boom:Almost every time people see my children...Baby boom:<BR/><BR/>Almost every time people see my children, since my fourth child, I'm asked if I homeschool. I do. We don't dress shabbily or homely at all and because it is always after comments are made about our number of children that I'm asked, I believe it is only the size of our family that begs the question.<BR/><BR/>A commenter on the Borjas blog wondered if it wasn't more demographic: more children were born to religious, traditional mothers so...<BR/><BR/>I'm having my fifth child and don't relate at all to the women in the Times or NPR. Since my teens, I've believed that a woman's place was at home; I married at 21 to a high I.Q. man who himself was only 19. We were able to do this because of the Military. He's 28 and about to be promoted to manager at a electrical test equipment lab where he'll break into the 6 figures. I suppose he could have gotten a comparable job a few years earlier if he'd gone to college, but it wasn't worth it to him to put his love life on hold AND have a lot more debt. <BR/><BR/>We are in that small percentage that Murray writes about who have I.Q.s above 130 but no college degree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5096205021941167462007-08-16T18:19:00.000-07:002007-08-16T18:19:00.000-07:00It seems we’re demographically heading to a Latin ...<I>It seems we’re demographically heading to a Latin America type of elite IQ/race/wealth oligarchy future.</I><BR/><BR/>The squeeze is obviously hardest on the middle. The upper class types keep away from the lower class with little difficulty, but the lower-class is always finding ways of nipping at the heels of the middle. If they can't afford a home on their home, the lower-class will get them in middle class neighborhoods with governemnt subsidies, or by bunching up with one or two or three other lower-class families. This, of course, is especially true of immigrants.<BR/><BR/>How does the middle class keep away from this problem? By moving out further into the burbs, increasing their commute times, and having fewer kids.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83002158756131128662007-08-16T18:13:00.000-07:002007-08-16T18:13:00.000-07:00Sad but actually encouraging in a way. Is it too m...Sad but actually encouraging in a way. Is it too much to expect that the less government can do, the less meddling it will try to do?<BR/><BR/>Sounds like a good idea, but that hasn't stopped Congress from lavishing billions more on Head Start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14209962077689772012007-08-16T14:47:00.000-07:002007-08-16T14:47:00.000-07:00anon 12:05 said:For whatever "reason", Caucasians ...anon 12:05 said:<BR/><BR/><I>For whatever "reason", Caucasians [and especially Caucasian men] have relatively broad, flat Gaussians, which taper off very slowly, whereas minorities [to include both black Africans, American mestizi/indio's, and even Asians] have Gaussians which tend to fall off much more sharply [leaving most of their populations clustered very closely around their means, with very few outliers].</I><BR/><BR/>I've seen La Griffe use a lower number for the IQ SD of African Americans, about 12.5 vs. 15 for the overall US SD IIRC, but I can't recall seeing any other racial or ethnic specific SD's. I'd be most interested in any info, with links, you have concerning NE Asian SD's.<BR/><BR/>I have seen it called narrower, but then I think that my have been on AmRen -- which is not exactly a useful authority to cite.Doug1https://www.blogger.com/profile/13948793969077395057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88395255606339732032007-08-16T14:15:00.000-07:002007-08-16T14:15:00.000-07:00Anon 12:31 – I was surprised as well to hear that ...Anon 12:31 – I was surprised as well to hear that the upper class are breeding again. This trend is not as well documented or establised as the plunge in birthrates since the 60’s but here are a few links:<BR/><BR/>(1) <A HREF="http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/08/do-we-need-a-ne.html" REL="nofollow"> Prof. Borjas Blog</A><BR/><BR/>An Interesting New Trend in Fertility<BR/>The modern economic theory of fertility dates back to the work of Gary Becker and Jacob Mincer in the early 1960s. They stressed that fertility responds both to changes in a household's income as well as to changes in the "price" of having more children. Mincer, in particular, emphasized these price effects, arguing that the number of children a family would have would fall as women's wages rise. The intuition is obvious: a rise in the mother's wage makes having children more expensive.<BR/>This framework, with some minor tweaks, is often used to explain why fertility falls as a country becomes richer. As the country's per-capita income rises, the additional wealth would encourage families to have more children---but the higher price of a woman's time would encourage families to have fewer children. The traditional assumption (supported by data) was that the price effect outweighs the income effect.<BR/><BR/>But there are a few signs that we may need to rethink some of these ideas. This is from a recent NPR report:<BR/>The newest status symbol for the nation's most affluent families is fast becoming a big brood of kids.<BR/>Historically, the country-club set has had the smallest number of kids. But in the past 10 years, the number of high-end earners who are having three or more kids has shot up nearly 30 percent.<BR/>Some say the trend is driven by a generation of over-achieving career women who have quit work and transferred all of their competitive energy to baby making.<BR/>They call it "competitive birthing."<BR/><BR/><BR/>(2) <A HREF="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12513004" REL="nofollow">NPR Radio</A><BR/><BR/>(3) <A HREF="http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/the-manhattan-baby-boom/" REL="nofollow">NYTime Blog</A><BR/><BR/>March 23, 2007, 10:03 am <BR/>The Manhattan Baby Boom<BR/>By Sam Roberts<BR/>Since 2000, according to census figures released last year, the number of children under age 5 living in Manhattan mushroomed by more than 32 percent. And though their ranks have been growing for several years, a new analysis for The New York Times makes clear for the first time who has been driving that growth: wealthy white families.<BR/><BR/>At least half of the growth was generated by children who are white and non-Hispanic. Their ranks expanded by more than 40 percent from 2000 to 2005. For the first time since at least the 1960s, white children now outnumber either black or Hispanic youngsters in that age group in Manhattan. <BR/><BR/>(4) <A HREF="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1967563.ece" REL="nofollow">UK London Times Online</A><BR/><BR/>Four richer, four poorer<BR/>How many children make the perfect family? Four seems to be the new ideal for affluent parents. Our correspondent explains why, and two mothers give conflicting views on large familiesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54378447770626756822007-08-16T13:56:00.000-07:002007-08-16T13:56:00.000-07:00The educational disparity between NE Asians and Bl...The educational disparity between NE Asians and Blacks is largely explained by who gets the girls.<BR/><BR/>Young NE Asian men are not going to win by a macho contest: bling-bling, gangsta behavior, low body fat-high muscle mass ratio, and other tough-guy posturing.<BR/><BR/>They "win" by having more future status and income. That is a strategy that works for them. That means studying to get the girl. A love of learning certainly doesn't enter into it, any more than Blacks love sports.<BR/><BR/>Each is merely a means to get the girl.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com