Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Race, Racism and Income Inequality

Race, Racism and Income Inequality

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,039|Likes:
Published by Ryan Faulk
Pretty basic stuff about Race and Racism and Income Inequality.
Pretty basic stuff about Race and Racism and Income Inequality.

More info:

Published by: Ryan Faulk on May 26, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Race and Economic Inequality on a Free Market
I am not going to be coddling demons or try to ease this in. There's been too much of that.
What's at stake?
What's at stake is a key battle against the state. “Racism” is used as an excuse for statism. Thereis an income gap between "white" people and "black" people. Is the income gap a result of environment, aggregate genetic differences, or a mixture of both?If the gap is almost entirely the result of genetic differences, then nothing is amiss on this frontand there is no modus for state intervention. If the gap is caused by the effects of current and / orprior violence, then that can (and is) used as an argument for extortion and statism.Victory for the pro-freedom side is that the gap is caused internally, either by genetics or “culture”. Since “culture” is vague and unfalsifiable, I'm going to focus on genetics.Victory for the anti-freedom side is that the gap is caused by current and / or prior violence:slavery and race-based employment laws.
Lets talk about IQ. You may think you know where I'm going with this, but unless you're already aheredetarian you probably don't. You don't know. You may think you do, but you don't. People aregenerally conditioned to believe two things:1. IQ is bullshit and2. They are smart for believing IQ is bullshitFirst off don't worry about your IQ, it doesn't matter and you would be better off not knowing it.Simple willingness to think and accepting yourself (allowing your life to emerge) is systematicallymore important. Obsessing over standardized test scores in general is an extremely dangerousthing and I want to be clear that I do not put much stock in IQ as a measure of any individualman.It is a mismeasure of mAn, but it is an excellent measure of mEn.Lets say you gave two men, Bob and James, a vocabulary test. You know nothing about these twomen except that they have the capacity to take a vocabulary test. Bob scores a 6 out of 10, Jamesscores a 5 out of 10. Who is smarter?Well if I was forced to choose, I would say Bob is "smarter". And by that I mean if both Bob andJames were subjected to a battery of tests regarding the brain, Bob would most likely do betterthan James. And I would say the probability of Bob doing better than James is somewhere around50.00001%. Which is still virtually a coin toss.An analogy would be that if Bob could bench press 1 pound more than James, I would predict thatBob could squat more than James if I was forced to predict, but I wouldn't put much more stock inthis prediction than a coin toss. And like the vocabulary test, the bench press is affected by thespecific conditions of the time of measurement.Now let us presume we had a slightly better measure. Lets say Bob could bench press 270 poundsand James could bench press 240 pounds. Just making numbers up, I would then predict Bobcould also squat more than James with a 55% probability.
NOW we have something to work with. Lets say you have group A: 1000 people who can benchpress 270 pounds, and group B: 1000 people who can bench press 240 pounds. Given thisinformation we can be virtually certain that group A, on average, can squat more than group B.Similarly, if group A: 1000 people who scored on average 6/10 on a vocabulary test, and group B:1000 people who scored on average 5/10 on the same vocabulary test, we can be virtually certainthat group A would do better on a math test on average than group B - assuming a .10 correlationbetween math and vocabulary scores.People like Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein go into detail as to why IQ testsper se are valuable, but I am not interested in that.In fact, the specific mental test is not very important to me, because I am not interested inindividuals with this stuff. I am interested in group A and group B.
Race and IQ
IQ generally correlates with income. According to Arthur Jensen, it's 0.4, and according to DanielSeligman it's 0.5.So if group A has 1000 people with a median IQ of 100, and group B has 1000 people with amedian IQ of 85, we can be virtually certain that group A will earn more income than group B.The median IQ of the group "black people" is 85, while the median IQ of the group "white people"is 100, and there are many more than 1000 people in each example. And, not surprisingly, whitepeople make significantly more in the US than black people in the US.Black people tend to have other outcomes distinct from white people, but those involve value judgments, so I will just stick with income.Now what causes the IQ-score difference between the groups? Well "black people" and "whitepeople", while not apodictically different, are relatively discrete genetic clusters.---Now before one even crops up arguments along the lines of, "there's more variation withinpopulations than between, and there are no specific genes for race, and we're 99.9% the same etcetera", know that that doesn't matter.The reason being that the total amount of genetic information is not what anyone is concernedwith, it's the expressed differences we are concerned with. If they are talking about alleles, theyare probably propagandizing.At the base pair level, men and women are 99.7% the same. And yet, there are clearly significantgenetically-caused differences between men and women, and we're not seeing presentations like,"Gender: The Power of an Illusion" or babble that "gender is a social construct" except from old-school feminists.---We also know that this genetic cluster ("black people") in the US in the past were enslaved andthen legally suppressed, which clearly impacted the standard of living of blacks in the past andmay have lingering effects today.As you can see I am clearly focusing on US blacks, and the reason is that as of the time of this
writing they are the relevant race. White people aren't demanding the product of the labor of NEAsians and vice-versa.And I am not focusing on Hispanic immigrants for three reasons:1. Hispanics trend more libertarian than blacks2. Hispanics tend to be racial nationalists more than blacks - they demand land, not the product of the labor of whites3. There is less data on Hispanics, and while Hispanics from Mexico have genetic tendencies, theyare not a "race" - as loose as that term already is.
More ThingsAdoption Studies
- The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was run by Sandra Scharr, whobefore the study was an equalitarian. She wanted to take black, mulatto and white children andhave them adopted by white parents, and compare them to a control of non-adopted whitechildren to see the effects of environment. The test was run by an equalitarian with the intent of disproving the notion that there was a significant genetic component to the black-white IQ gap.She was not able to secure the necessary funding from academia, but the Pioneer Fund, a pro-eugenics organization that supported the Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's, gave Scharr the fundingshe wanted. Lots of organizations supported the Nazis when they were popular, and from what Iknow about the Pioneer Fund I support their efforts to fund politically incorrect studies.And today the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is in my estimation the single best piece of evidence against equalitarianism. I want to keep this book short, with the internet the specifics of the study are not hard to find, but here are the results:Age 7 IQ Age 17 IQAdopting Parents 120 115Non-adopted white 117 109Adopted White 112 106Adopted Mulatto 109 99Adopted Black 97 89Scharr and her colleague Richard Weinberg interpreted the results as supporting an environment-only hypothesis, and made methodological critiques to their study claiming that pre adoptionfactors confounded racial ancestry. It is noteworthy that these methodological critiques of theirown study weren't stated until 1994 in response to Richard Lynn, 18 years after it was firstpublished.There have been other adoption studies involving black and white subjects, but they were notdesigned to determine a genetic component of the overarching black-white IQ gap, but to solvesmaller issues, such as the effect of having a white mother - black father vs. black mother - whitefather. And so their samples were not selected to be representative or random.What you will notice about these studies, such as the Baltimore or Eyferth study, is that you canget B-W IQ gaps that are small and even with blacks scoring a little bit higher than whites, butyou don't see black populations being a standard deviation higher than white populations.
Brain Size
- I am not going to make any case for brain size and intelligence, but I know there arepeople that do. A common response to the correlation of brain size and IQ is, "gee, I guesselephants, whales and dolphins must be the smartest animals on the planet."While even if we assume humans are "smarter" than whales, elephants and dolphins, those

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Paola Mulligan liked this
onykutzika liked this
chokimen liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->