DISQUS

CarlM · 11 months ago

The assertion that "the party putatively determined to reduce inequality benefits from doing just the opposite" is absurd.

Let's assume that people of all parties actually want to make the world a better place. States that have larger inequalities probably also have more visible effects of that inequality. Thus, the citizens of those states would be more likely to perceive the inequalities and perhaps want to do something to reduce them. If it is true that the Democratic Party is perceived as being more likely to do this, then they are more likely to vote Democratic.

To assert that the Democratic Party would benefit from increasing inequality is absurd.

Since some will find it relevant, I will point out that I believe that the IQ we're talking about is largely environmental.

Daniel Miessler · 11 months ago

The only part I object with in the sentence is "doing" just the opposite, which seems to suggest that the democratic party would like to encourage inequality so that it will spawn allegiance to them.

In other words, I think it's wrong to say they're bringing it about on purpose, but I think he's spot on in saying that the inequality helps them. Here's why.

Inequality illustrates to most that the inequality is unjust. This applies to many of the very rich, with power, and to the vast majority of those who suffer at the bottom while watching the upper middle and upper classes thrive within a buffer of luxury.

This is why the inequality states are more liberal.

And as for your comment about intelligence, the notion that it's "largely" environmental is accepted by virtually everyone in the field--including those who think it's largely genetic. The current estimates range from around 50/50 gen/env to 80/20 gen/env, and even though that's a major gap, choosing either extreme still gives a *lot* of credence to the other side.

So yeah, it's a mix, no doubt. But the twin studies have pretty much proven that there's a VERY HIGH genetic element. What people don't realize is that if we fully leveraged environmental factors we could make massive progress--perhaps even despite any genetic disadvantages.

I'd encourage you to read the latest material in the space; it's really quite accepted that it's highly genetic; they're quarreling over the exact percentages at this point. Even super-liberals like Malcolm Gladwell are fully accepting of the concept of IQ, and the fact that it's tied to genetics, but he, like me, accepts that it doesn't matter because we're squandering away the environmental opportunities we have to grow intelligence.

This is to say that when someone has a really low IQ in today's world, it's for environmental reasons not because of genetics. And if we were to grow their minds correctly from youth they would be highly intelligent--likely to a point where any genetic advantages would be matters of diminishing return within the context of standard "success" in a modern society.

In short, I think we're agreeing here.

CarlM · 11 months ago

If the Democratic Party is perceived to be the party that will help reduce inequality, then saying that the Democratic Party benefits from inequality is like saying that Police Departments benefit from crime or Fire Departments benefit from fire. (Perhaps true, but entirely meaningless.)

To assert that the Police benefit from CREATING crime or Fire Departments benefit from CREATING fire is silly. It's equally silly to say that the Democratic Party would benefit from CREATING inequality. It sounds like something that Ann Coulter would say.

----

Are there inherited differences in IQ? Sure. So what? I can think of few if any ways in which that is relevant to public policy. The fact is that there are things that we as a society can to to decrease educational inequalities. At the risk of getting even further off topic, I'll suggest that ONE of the contributers to educational inequality is the differing expectations and standards that are applied to people in different schools (or, sadly, even within a single school).

Daniel Miessler · 11 months ago

Aren't we agreeing? It looks that way to me.

CarlM · 11 months ago

Yes, relax, Daniel. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm disagreeing with The Audacious Epigone. Their point was a little like saying that cities with more crime have more police. Coincidence? No. But it would be silly to assert that the cause is the police and the effect is the crime.

Reader · 11 months ago

What's with all the links to VDARE.com on that blog? I've browsed their site over the years and they seem to be obsessed with race.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDARE#Controversy_...

Some critics of VDARE claim that it publishes pseudoscientific, racist and/or racialist material. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) called VDARE a hate group,[5] that was "once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page," but by 2003 became "a meeting place for many on the radical right."[6] The group also criticized VDARE for publishing articles by white nationalists Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, along with other authors who deal with race and intelligence.

Cawdor · 11 months ago

I have noticed that these high IQ states also have the worse economies and were completely suckered by the fallacy of the fiat/debt

Maybe what we need is a common sense based score

icepyro · 11 months ago

I agree with CarlM on this one. The why is the same correlation as higher crime tends to involve more police. Whether accidental or not, democrats are more prone to see equality and feel there is something to be done about it, while Republicans tend to preach that the people should do something about their own situation and thus less inequality is observed. The cause is the why.
There is a difference between unjust inequality and complacent inequality.

Maxolasersquad · 11 months ago

My wife is an ESE teacher and is certified to administer a pre-IQ test to her students when needed, for what that is worth. I asked her for her opinion on this and she believes it represents an flaw in the IQ test. She maintains that there shouldn't be a significant difference among the different states.
I don't know much about it.