I don't dismiss the correlation between IQ scores and important life outcomes. I dismiss the concept of IQ scores being a stationary quality and not themselves influenced by many factors. If one can improve one's IQ score simply by playing a lot of Tetris (which has been shown in scientific studies if I recall), the idea of using test scores to judge the innate capability of an entire race of people is, to say the least, a bit unfair, especially given the vastly different environmental factors experienced by people of different races, even those living in the same country. This has nothing to do with "PC dogma", but rather that IQ is simply a shaky foundation to build any argument on, as you don't "have an IQ", but rather the ability to score a certain distribution of IQ scores at a particular point in time.
It's true that temporary boosts to IQ scores can result from particular forms of training and study, but long-term testing demonstrates that these effects fade out over time. In fact, the fade-out effect is so large and strong that by age 30, gaps resulting from being raised in differing socioeconomic circumstances almost completely disappear.
It's true that IQ scores are influenced by many factors, but general intelligence ("g")
is a very stable trait in adults and is a very strong predictor of various outcomes for both individuals and groups. The scientific literature on this issue is so overwhelmingly one-sided that the only possible way you could doubt it is as a result of ingesting mass quantities of PC propaganda.
Environmental factors play a much smaller role than genetics in determining adult IQ. Fair or not, it is
factually true that black people are, on average, less intelligent and more violent than white people, and the vast majority of these differences are the result of genetics, which we know of no way to change. In other words: on average, black people are less suited to life in civilized societies than white people, and their inclusion in a population that was formerly racially homogenous produces a rise in crime, fear, distrust, inequality, and other social ills. Similar comments could be made about mestizos, to a lesser extent.
The denial that intelligence is very much an innate and largely immutable trait is arguably the
most important tenet of PC dogma. It is only after denying this obvious truth that the rest of the PC doctrine falls into place. So it's pretty silly to see you pretend to be an opponent of political correctness. You are so completely enveloped in its womb that you can't even see out. You imagine yourself fighting against it when in fact you are its ardent defender.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with this. It's just wise to not prematurely jump to conclusions.
Agreed. It's similarly wise not to refrain from reaching conclusions merely because they make us uncomfortable.
And I'm not opposed at all to profiling tactics, as long as stubborn committal to them doesn't lead to a security breach in the long term. Simplified example: if we only check guys who appear "Islamic" in the airports, Islamic terrorist organizations will catch on and only get people who don't look "Islamic" to carry out their attacks.
Also agreed. I took Schneier's side in
his debate with Sam Harris. Hopefully my reasons for asking were obvious.
