Commentator “Mugabe” mentioned a new blog post by scientist Steve Hsu asking whether Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans. Harvard and other elite universities disgust me for several reasons:
1)The whole reason IQ is so fascinating to me is that intelligent people get to the top naturally by doing smart things & avoiding dumb mistakes. Elite schools demand that smart people get ahead by doing well on an IQ test ( SAT) that gives them credentials. This takes a fascinating natural phenomenon (smart people get to the top) & reduces it to a boring socially engineered self-fulfilling prophecy & prevents us from studying the phenomenon under ideal circumstances. It’s like trying to study why the fastest cheetah gets the food only to discover someone has been testing the cheetahs for speed & feeding the fast ones instead of letting them catch food themselves.
2) Elite schools are full of hypocrites. They claim to be liberal and anti-HBD, yet they use a disguised IQ test (the SAT) as a major factor in selecting students. If that weren’t hypocritical enough, they then cherry pick from the high scoring population which students to select based on arbitrary and suspicious criteria.
3) I’m a proud Canadian. In Canada, there is no Ivy League. Here anyone can get ahead naturally through hard work, ambition, luck, and smarts. We’re not branded for life based on where we went to school at age 20. The American Ivy League thinks they’re a meritocracy but they’re largely a caste system, and graduates go out into the word and actively discriminate against people who went to lesser schools. If you look at the people who write for America’s most influential newspapers, work for America’s most lucrative investment banks, and fill influential positions in the white house, graduates of elite schools are dramatically over-represented, even after controlling for the likely IQ distribution of such occupations.
4) Ivy League schools destroy the fabric of America. If scholar Charles Murray is correct, back in the 1950s, the U.S. used to be a lot like Canada. There were small rural towns in middle America where people with IQs of 130 and IQs of 70 lived as neighbors, each contributing their unique qualities for the good of the local community. But thanks to elite schools, the best and brightest in small town rural America are being removed from their communities where they did a lot of good and sent to places like Harvard where they are recruited into the largely useless coastal elite professions. Meanwhile the small town rural communities they leave behind suffer a brain drain and degenerate into an underclass (see Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart )
”2) Elite schools are full of hypocrites. They claim to be liberal and anti-HBD, yet they use a disguised IQ test (the SAT) as a major factor in selecting students. If that weren’t hypocritical enough, they then cherry pick from the high scoring population which students to select based on arbitrary and suspicious criteria.”
Perfect part of your text. In fact, seems extremely common this kind of cognitive dissonance (with the reality) in iq-intelligent people. Mechanization of ”bureaucratic meritocracy” select and produces people who are not accustomed to handle with failure (and probably with genetic predispositions to this kind of ”schizophrenia”)
Iq and ”education” measure static technical intelligence (or utilitary intelligence). ”We” (i do not believe more) believe people who are better in psychometric tests are always smart than people who are average (specially) in these tests, in REAL life. But, i believe quantitative levels of intelligence are overcome by qualitative levels starting higher levels of iq. Differences among iq levels varies ”unlinearly”, like the ages. No make dramatic difference if a girl with 12 years date a boy with 14 years, but if a girl have 9 years and the boy have 14 years old, so, the differences increase considerably. Could the quality of intelligence, increase and diversify considerably (specially by individual level) when iq is higher than 100. Hypothesis.
Cognitive castes is not a bad thing ever. But, when castes systems produces inequality like in India or in USA, its a problem, but is not automatic thought, castes= problems. People born with cognitive specializations susceptbilities. The problem is the cultural value we place particular profession over another. For example, the salary of a hollywood actor compared to the salary of a scientist.
As i said in my blog, ”Thermanian Nightmare” in Haiti. Inventions are completely useless if people who produce it don’t know see and understand the reality. Is like a spider with a wasp parasite in his head that build a beautiful web (by the Wasp, with luv!! -) and after is dead by parasites.
Societies select to something AND produce to somebody.
But… and discrimination against asian-americans by ”whitewashwassp” elites…where is it…
pumpkin should be happy the elite schools use HBD
The term elite is disgusting, even more for the type of zelite we have. I would not be happy. Top university is a factory of mundane ego and cognitive desilusion.
pumpkin should be happy the elite schools use HBD
They’re benefiting from HBD, while demonizing anyone who believes in HBD. That’s completely hypocritical.
And on top of that they’re making it harder to observe the natural effects of HBD because they’re causing IQ and success to correlate for artificial reasons (ivy league credentials) instead of natural reasons.
The human being is intelligent, not because he adapts to the environment, but because ”he” adapts the environment to their needs.
The IQ-smart ones adapt to the environment, as animals can do well. The truly intelligent reflect on their attitudes, beliefs and expectations, the ultimate success that made humanity, first in the food chain. In other words, he seeks to adapt the environment to their needs. He modifies its environment to its image and perfection. Try.
In Denmark we don’t have it either, and we do well. Universities are a bit like extended high-school but at phd-level america can’t beat us. That goes to show that if the talent is there, excellence be spring forth, with or without ivy leages.
Denmark has the highest government spending as a % of GDP of any OECD country, the highest tax revenues as a % of OECD countries, in the top three for % employed by government, and yet…
they are the happiest people on earth and
have a GNI per capita higher than the US.
there was an Indian scientist at the U of Aarhus I was interested in working for but I didn’t apply.
US population is 10 times higher. US IQ standard deviation, looking at pisa studies, are also higher than Canada. So I guess, it is natural to form Elite universities, where the population is high and cognitive abilities highly deviate.
It is also the case in Scandinavian countries. Looking again at Pisa study, the standard deviation is extremely low, and population very low.
True, because of its large population & variance, the U.S. has a critical mass of high IQ people. Probably a factor in creating the college caste system.
The other Ivy Universities also does not rise as far as I see from the pic.
this is a better pic…
‘2) Elite schools are full of hypocrites. They claim to be liberal and anti-HBD, yet they use a disguised IQ test (the SAT) as a major factor in selecting students. If that weren’t hypocritical enough, they then cherry pick from the high scoring population which students to select based on arbitrary and suspicious criteria’
The SAT is more of an achievement test now, though. The other selection criteria aren’t any more or less aribtrary.
Anyone who scores > 60-70 tile can understand most any college subject.
I highly doubt it measures smarts anymore (if it ever did).
The ivy league could start letting in Asians by merit but it would lose its white sponsors while Asians only have limited pockets. There is subtle dislike towards Asians at least in the bay area with white flight in some parts. The same thing happened to Jews until the 1940s. That’s when Jewish city college nobel prize winners end and Harvard Jewish Nobel prize winners begin.
It took roughly fifty years for secular jews to turn from blue collar to upper class (1900 to 1950). It’s only fair to assume it will take just as long for Asians to be fully integrated into American society.
Still, it may take longer as immigration won’t be cut. Cubans have been here for 50 years but as long as new waves keep coming, they are seen as foreigners. The 1924 immigration ban is what started assimilation, first among urban ethnics and then with America overall.
If Asians want to be valued in society, they need to ban immigration and let their kids fully assimilate.
it all depends on how merit is defined.
if it were defined by cumulative exams at the end of hs, as it is in almost every country on earth, the result would be that Asians would still be overrepresented but at a lower rate than they are currently.
Why did Jews get 50 years while other minorities — blacks — are deemed hopeless after less than 40?
Keep in mind that blacks have among whites for far less time than Jews have lived among gentile whites.
Merit has little to do with it. Money does as the Ivy Leagues are all private institution. They can’t afford to be a complete meritocracy because wealthy donors will only contribute if their mediocre offspring gets in. Regression to the mean. NYC’s public schools have more Nobel prizes than all of the nyc private schools.(32:1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_laureates_by_secondary_school_affiliation
That does not mean mediocrity. There are plenty of smart people who devote their time to making money rather than winning Nobel prizes
This mean if ”smart money-seekers” would forced to study science, they could win Nobel Prizes???
Yes, every one of those admitted to the Ivy Leagues are in the 1%, which is mathematically impossible. Nevermind the generous financial aid. wishful thinking by the anti-IQ, anti-ivy league left to blame money, just in the same way they blame rich people for keeping the lower/middle class down. It’s always some environmental factor, never biology for the failure for so many to succeed. And for those who do succeed, it’s because of luck or some other unfair environmental advantage.
genes haven’t changed in the last fifty years yet there is greater inequality.
and what is “success” if it benefits only the “successful”.
the last 3o years of trickle down has only resulted in trickle up.
the “rising tide” has lifted only giant yachts.
I scored 770 on the GMAT and never applied to B-school. I knew none worth the money would except me.
I scored higher on the SAT, ACT, CBATs etc than the median of those accepted by the elite schools I applied to but all rejected me. I didn’t have six extra-curriculars and a 4.0.
u r a moron.
…would accept me…
Education matters. When you divorce the thing from its practical use you alienate induviduals who have more practical concerns.
Put another way— street smarts are the same as real smarts. You’re just looking at people with different knowledge bases applying the same skill. IQ tests don’t ask questions like ‘who is lying in x situation?’ ‘Who can you trust given these events?’
Risk taking heritable .55
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3077362/#!po=0.416667
Risk taking positively correlated with > wealth in household portfolio setting
http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=114330
In normal individuals increasing IQ negatively correlated with risk taking
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mikle_South/publication/43300309_Failure_is_not_an_option_Risk-taking_is_moderated_by_anxiety_and_also_by_cognitive_ability_in_children_and_adolescents_diagnosed_with_an_autism_spectrum_disorder/links/0fcfd505b3411dd107000000
So if IQ and risk taking negatively correlate around .5, then IQ 130 would give us a negative risk taking z score of like -.25 with sd what…like .5 z?
So an IQ 130 with 2 z score risk taking would be a +3.25z proposition? 99.9 tile?
Income at that level? ~ 1 million.
2.75 blargh but still z score around one million
So if IQ and risk taking negatively correlate around .5, then IQ 130 would give us a negative risk taking z score of like -.25 with sd what…like .5 z?
swanknasty, If there were a -0.5 correlation between IQ and risk taking, then assuming normal distributions, IQ 130s would have an expected risk taking Z or of -1 with, not -0.25. The expected risk taking SD for people at that IQ level would be 0.87.
oh right i sqr the .5 for some reason.
either way, -1 + 3 = 2. 3/.87 ~ 3.44. so that’s some serious money.
Also why .87 and not .75
Because, as you know, the SD is the square root of the variance
Anyway I’m convinced now. Risk taking + high IQ is probably highly correlated with income
that’s only very very high income and only a very small % of that.
the entrepreneur as risk taker idea is 99% ideology 1% reality.
most of the 1% in America has been mediated by elite education.
that is, 15% are health care professionals (doctors, dentists, etc), 8% are lawyers, 40+% are business executives at companies they didn’t found.
So then I should actually probably say extreme social mobility.
Doctors and lawyers are in professions that involve substantial risk even at the worker drone level. Business executives seem like the same.
Probably lower IQ lower risk taking propensity needed.
Could be mostly ideology because it’s extremely uncommon.
There are many types of ”gifted” people. Then, some groups of gifted people are more prone to risk taking. Sensation seeking, novelty and existential depression is common in highly creative people and not so high for highly iq-intelligent people. The problem is always the interpretation: ”gifted” versus ”non-gifted”. Gifted is understood as ”homogeneous group” TO be compared with other cognitive classes. But, no there ”homogeneous group”, only if you take into account a group of clones, genetically identical and internally cohesive.
A stupid observation about Terman longitudinal study. Terman selected their ”geniuses” (”or” prodigious) by ”iq criteria”, but not by creative talent. This explain why Terman failed to find real genius.
But ‘real’ genius is exceptionally rare, even among the high-IQ subset. It’s just that smarter people have better odds. You’re not gonna create a Facebook or an Uber or find a new physics discovery among room temperature IQ people.
I did not understand the last part of your comment. I think one of the most important things for creativity is the will and self-confidence to show it to the public. And there are many truly creative people who do not have this confidence.
About iq and geniuses. If IQ is not the only predictor of genius and in fact it is not even an extremely correlative predictor, then some kind of marker for high intellect should be suggested in place of IQ. Something more comprehensive, which take not only cognitive attributes, but the personality and all that is added to it. I thought the idea of ” existential depression ” Kazimierz Dabrowski.
It is noteworthy that existential depression is not exactly the same as unipolar depression. Existential depression is a leap of consciousness.
IQ risk taking and creativity at sufficiently high levels probably combine to create genius
Creativity = dissatisfaction + belief in self + a little intelligence
And latent disinhibition
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html
Creativity then seems to be composed of a few traits that also probably negatively correlate with higher IQ.
Becomes easier to explain why IQ can predict a lack of poverty but not wealth and can predict intelligence but not genius so well.
Depends on the type of creativity. Creativity at paper mache requires less IQ than creativity at programming
It’s all the same thing. It just takes less IQ to do paper mâché so creative people will find it easier to be creative with paper mache. And harder with higher IQ subjects.
… IQ can predict a lack of poverty
Yeah, lack of poverty is a surer sign. That is because questions of poverty or moderate wealth concerns greater number of people. You won’t find an intelligent population segment in poverty, unless they are brutally oppressed by a much larger majority. Ultra rich can be found or not found for many reasons including chance. I still believe 140 beats 130 and so on, but as robustly as 110 beats 100.
Usually most high IQ people just go to work solving problems for other individuals.
To make money you have to see relationships others don’t see. Then you need to work out the problems with those relationships. Then you need to act.
The main value comes from seeing the relationships and deciding to act on that thought.
Some kind of smartness trap – gut stuck solving hard theoretical problems and addicted to being the one who can, and too proud to do stuff others can do, like “seeing the relationsships”. Some fall in that trap, yes, but said trap is open to all with university degrees, and I wonder if the truly intelligent don’t see through it.
Well what do you mean by truly intelligent? I’m sure a lot of high iq individuals don’t think of themselves as being in a trap. It’s not really a trap if they don’t want to take risks.
Lots of them realized they’ve walked into a trap, voluntarily, and they realize it when it’s too late. As you said, they work for someone else, and it happened in a loooong fit of absence of mind.
http://richardedmondson.net/2014/01/19/are-the-jews-crazy/
Possible higher rates of mental conditions in ashkenazim could explain higher machiavelian creativity (i have too, 🙂 ). Lower rates of alcoholics in ashkenazim population ”coud” explain lower rates of completely geniuses in these population (i’m not alcoholic, i dislike alcoholic drinking).
I think creativity and intelligence are two opposite cognitive profiles (and not, conceptually opposite). Intelligence, specially utilitary or technical intelligence, related with learn ”old things” (old creativity) and replicate it. Creativity related to create new things. Seems, cognitive properties that are accessed during ”inteligent thinking” are not the same as those that are accessed during pure ”creative thinking”. Manipulation of thoughts, concepts are not the same than learning (memorize and replicate). Very higher iq people could many times inhibit its creativity to memorize and learned greater quantity of informations while highly creative are intrinsically predisposed to despise deep knowledge about specific subject, to do unusual analogies of different subjects (learn and memorise concepts, big picture), but with costs about higher technical intelligence.
But ”pure creativity” doesn’t happen alone. Creativity depend on intelligence, but many times, intelligence don’t need creativity to exist and work, but will have the tendence to suffer by ossification. Creativity is a dynamic environmental manifestation of intelligence. The intelligence in motion.
Indians and Chinese do better academically in the UK too, but I believe the difference isn’t as great as it is in the US let alone Canada, that is, for their % of the population.
and the reason is that British uni admissions are based almost exclusively on cumulative exams, GCSEs and A-levels, also called “school-leaving exams”. and so the difference is more an IQ difference than it is in the Us and Canada. but maybe American immigrants from China and India are smarter than they are in the UK. my guess is the opposite is the case.
but, obviously, the UK has an Apartheid system of hs education where so called “public school” (in Canada and the US private school) graduates are grossly over-represented at Oxbridge and I suppose the other elite British unis like UCL, ICL, and Endinburgh. that is, they are more over-represented than one would expect given that they likely have parents with higher IQs. 40+% of Westminster school goes to Oxbridge. there’s no American prep school like that.
but I don’t know.
does anyone have figures on this?
so for example Flynn found that Chinese Americans did NOT have higher IQs than white/European Americans but performed academically and occupationally as if they had scored higher.
one can goof off and by very “stroppy” at a British school. but if he gets the test scores he’s in nonetheless.
not the case in America or Canada.
as a result American and Canadian unis select for obedience and striverishness much more. whereas British and almost all other countries unis select more for IQ per se.
so because the IQ difference between Asian immigrants and whites is not that large one would expect that Asians would be over-represented at elite unis…
but not by as much as they are currently.
in another recent post Prof Shoe discusses why he thinks additive heritability is the bulk of heritability, but then…
Far too many scientists and quasi-scientists are infected by the epistasis or epigenetics meme, which is appealing to those who “revel in complexity” and would like to believe that biology is too complex to succumb to equations.
this is a misunderstanding on Shoe’s part.
he is confusing regression weights with “effect sizes” independent of the region in (G,E) space for which the linear approximation to the surface P(G,E) was made.
furthermore the evidence cited for discrimination shows that the most discriminated against group is in fact white gentiles without rich parents.
but in America this is an issue which cannot be raised by anyone who wants to keep his job.
in fact, Jewish American academic performance has declined precipitously over the last 40-50 years, yet their % at elite schools has only gone up.
and there was NEVER any policy of discrimination against Jewish applicants with any effect. this is a LIE. from 1900 to the present Jews have always been grossly over-represented among elite American uni students.
While I believe that the askenazi jews are really smart, I also believe that they have the carpets rolled out for them. A jew with say iq 115 is picked up and nurtured by society, a gentile at the same level is just a useful idiot taxpayer.
Does Harvard discriminate against Asian-Americans?
Yes. A peer reviewed study by two Princeton professors named Espenshade and Radford and published in a book titled No Longer Separate, But Not Yet Equal analyzes admissions data from highly selective schools. They found affirmative action benefited blacks and hispanics at the expense of both whites and asians. This can be seen in the lower average test scores of blacks and hispanics admitted.
Whites admitted also have lower average test scores than asians leading some to claim that asian admissions are limited more than whites. But the Espenshade and Radford study showed this wasn’t true. The Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Education investigated and similarly found this wasn’t true. To quote…
A boost given to athletes and legacy admissions has a disparate impact but isn’t racial. Of course, some claim it’s a sneaky way to favor whites but logic shows it’s not. In the case of sports, blacks actually get more of a boost than whites. And, in the case of legacy admissions, it’s an added incentive for the best and brightest to attend and support the school. No first time applicant is happy about legacy admissions — until they get in. At which point none of them would want to abolish it. The simple fact is that sports and legacy admissions help attract the best students. And they keep alumni support at a high level. Both of which are critical for remaining a top school.
The Espenshade and Radford study showed the most discrimination is actually against poor whites from flyover country. They found poor asians, hispanics and blacks were 7, 8 and 10 times as likely to be admitted as equally qualified poor whites. In other words, the affirmative action burden of wealthy whites is being transferred to poor whites. So there’s no need for wealthy whites to discriminate against asians. They’re already boosting their admissions by discriminating against poor whites. Wealthy blacks similarly get a boost at the expense of poor blacks. This puts the lie to the claim that affirmative action is supposed to help poor blacks. It’s not. It’s designed to help rich blacks. Like I’ve said before, affirmative action is where wealthy whites pretend to care about poor blacks while favoring wealthy blacks and discriminating against poor whites.
Wealthy blacks similarly get a boost at the expense of poor blacks
I doubt many poor blacks even apply to elite schools
by “poor” is actually just meant not rich.
http://blog.dyslexicadvantage.org/2014/11/16/higher-creativity-with-lower-working-memory-surprises-of-adhd-dyslexia-giftedness-and-more/