The Affirmative Action
The Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, the Importance of Character and Other Lies by Steven Farron, 2005, is a well written book that covers the history of affirmative action laws, the reasoning that went into how institutions changed, the scientific underpinnings that are ignored, and how affirmative action impacts Whites, and a lot more. It is the best book in my opinion that covers affirmative action and the differences in academic performance between races based on innate abilities. It deals with affirmative action primarily in higher education, but the issues discussed are equally applicable to business set-asides, hiring practices, minority participation, quotas, etc.
Farron begins by noting that, "Usually it is simply assumed [that there are no differences between races in average mental ability], even though it has controlled American racial policy for over four decades, is contrary to all empirical evidence, and a priori is so improbable as to border on being impossible. Moynihan mentioned only Whites and Blacks in his study and attributed the socioeconomic gap between them to 'three centuries of sometimes unimaginable mistreatment' (Introduction). But from the premise of the innate equality of all groups of people, he drew the inescapable conclusion (Chapter I, italics added), 'the distribution of success and failure within one group [should] be roughly comparable to that within other groups.'"
What is so absurd now, is that affirmative action also applies to East Asians (who have a higher average intelligence and income than Whites), Asian Indians who also do well economically, Hispanics even though they may be wealthy and are very often White, South Asians who are less intelligent than Whites, while North Africans and Arabs are classified as White, and do not qualify for affirmative action programs. While many Blacks in the United States are descendants of slaves, the majority of those who are counted as minorities and covered by affirmative action programs are recent immigrants. Still, after 40 years of affirmative action programs, economically advantaged Blacks still score lower than disadvantaged Whites on mental ability exams.
Farron notes that: "26% of Jewish immigrants were illiterate, compared with 1% of English and Scandinavian immigrants, 3% of Irish, and 5% of German immigrants. The population density, dirt, noise, and poverty of the immigrant Jewish neighborhoods had few, if any, parallels in the world. Nearly half lived in New York, where 'In 1902 a survey found that only 8 percent of the city's Jewish families . . . had private baths.'…By 1919, the proportion of Jews at elite American colleges was several times the proportion of Jews in the American population; for example, 20 percent at Brown and Harvard, nearly 25 percent at the University of Pennsylvania, and 40 percent at Columbia; and these proportions were rising rapidly.
"As I explain in Section F of Appendix III, when the average intelligence of groups of people differs, the difference between them becomes more and more pronounced at the extremes. Consequently, the problem of Jewish overrepresentation was compounded by Jewish hyper-overrepresentation among the best students. The 1918 meeting of the Association of New England College Deans was concerned largely with the Jewish problem. Dean Jones of Yale said, 'A few years ago every single scholarship of any value was won by a Jew. I took it up with the Committee and said that we could not allow that to go on. We must put a ban on the Jews.' Four years later, Jones observed that 'despite the handicap of poverty and the necessity of working their way, the Jews make better average records than their Gentile fellows.'"
There is a social myth that Jews excel in education because of their social environments, but of course this is very false. As a persecuted people, they went through large swings between poverty–illiteracy and wealth–education, while never losing their innate high intelligence. When given an opportunity to compete, they outperform every other race of people with a standard deviation (about 15 IQ points) above the Western average of 100—or 25 points above the world average of about 90.
And yet, the Jews have been at the forefront of promoting the myth of equal intelligence between races—surely they must know how absurd that is! Likewise, they have been promoters of using racial bias in educational opportunities (racial quotas), while they are well aware that similar arguments were used against them in the past. My personal opinion is that unlike other minorities who do well compared to other races, Jews have a history of persecution, and are now trying to promote the idea that Judaism is a religion only, and that there is no such thing as the Jewish race.
Just like today, to get around innate intelligence, other means had to be adopted to be able to discriminate against Whites: "Columbia pursued diversity consistently. In 1945, when its anti-Jewish discrimination came under attack, it disclosed that it also discriminated in favor of Blacks over White Gentiles. Columbia showed that the Jewish problem could be solved. Other universities followed its example by adopting nebulous admissions criteria like character, leadership, and public spirit, along with the objectively definable criterion of regional diversity, since Jews were concentrated overwhelmingly in the Northeast, especially in New York."
In summary, then, the vicissitudes of academia looks like this: Children of the wealthy and powerful were accepted by universities without consideration for intelligence. This was seen as inefficient and testing was instituted to select applicants by ability. The Jews came along, and with higher scores started displacing Whites. To correct this selection based on testing, other criteria was added to reduce the number of Jews. Then, after the soviets launched the first space satellite in 1957, the need for talented scientists made selection based on intelligence acceptable again and the Jews were back dominating academia—especially among the elite. Then along came affirmative action for Blacks and other minorities, and selection based on standardized tests have been once again replaced by such criteria as character, race, etc. in the interest of diversity. Apparently, history doesn't really teach us much at all. Current struggles for dominance between groups will trump the facts of history and the best-known facts of science.
Farron notes that, "preference for sons of alumni was instituted for the first time, as a means of reducing the number of Jews. Between 1927 and 1936, the proportion of Yale students who were sons of alumni rose from 14 to 30 percent." Yet this is used today for justifying quotas, without mentioning why this policy evolved—it was used to select for Whites over Jews just like similar measures are conjured up today to select for minorities over Whites. Since simple quotas are not allowed, other factors like diversity, character, etc. are used to achieve the same results as quotas.
Social economic status (SES) is still being used by most social scientists and psychologists to escape what is obvious to those in the biological sciences—SES is a proxy for the genetic intelligence of the parents and thus the average intelligence of their children. Farron notes, "As will be demonstrated, the SAT predicts academic performance with great accuracy. The College Entrance Examination Board added it to achievement tests in order to democratize college admission by opening it to students who attended high schools that did not offer a full range of academic courses. I will show that when SAT scores began to be broken down by race/ethnicity and parental education and income, it was discovered how democratic they are. We now know that performance on them is not affected by family, social background, or school attended, because the children of wealthy, highly educated Black parents, who attend upper class suburban or private high schools, do worse than the children of poor, uneducated White and Asian parents, who attend slum schools."
Farron discusses regression to the mean. When intelligent Blacks marry, their children will regress towards the mean of the population group that they come from. For example, if two Blacks with IQs of 100 marry, their children will have IQs somewhere between 100 and 85, or the average intelligence of Blacks in the United States (85—however, there are also regional differences in average Black intelligence just as there is for Whites). Likewise, when two Whites with an average IQ of 85 marry, their children will have—on average—IQs between 85 and 100, the average IQ of Whites being 100. Of course, in every family the IQs of each child varies greatly because of inheriting different genes from each parent. Regression to the mean then is more useful when looking at averages from a large sample of population groups.
Farron discusses why we have come so far from the meritocratic ideals, when he notes that President Nixon, who was against affirmative action, gave in to Hispanic pressure groups to have them classified as a separate minority and given preferences. He notes that many of these anti-White policy changes are imposed on the majority by minority interest groups. Most of the time, the public is unaware of these capitulations for political expediency. Since then, the number of categories for preferences has expanded greatly, with White males castigated as the cause of all evil in economics, minority advancement, hate crimes, etc.
Likewise, with American Indians, he discusses how that category has expanded in numbers because of the benefits received. With a single great grand parent, a person can join the ranks of the privileged—and many do. Racial classifications are not always easily visible, so any proof of a Native American ancestor gets you into the preference club, with all its monetary advantages.
Farron notes: "Every study that has been done of the beneficiaries of academic affirmative action has found that the large majority are the children of middle and upper class, well-educated parents. One of the most astonishing revelations of The Bell Curve was that a Black whose parents are in the upper one-tenth of the American population in SES (socioeconomic status) is given preference in college admission over a White with a higher IQ whose parents are in the lowest tenth of the American population in SES. When a Black from the top half of American SES and a White from the bottom half attend the same college, the White has an average IQ 0.58 standard deviation (SD) higher than the Black. That is the difference between an average IQ and an IQ in the upper 30 percent of the American population. When a Black and White student from the lower half of SES both attend the same college, the difference in average IQ between them is 1.17 of a SD. That is the difference between an average IQ and an IQ in the upper 13 percent of the population. That is how much superior in IQ a White applicant has to be than a Black applicant from the same SES to be judged an equally desirable student." One standard deviation is equivalent to 15 IQ points.
No matter how one looks at the data, the roughly 15 IQ difference between Whites and Blacks (and the 15 IQ difference between Whites and Jews) has been steady for over 100 years or more. Since intelligence, when adulthood is reached, is 80% genetic, there is little one can do to change intelligence. The media of course likes to show improvements in intelligence from intervention programs for children, but children's brain are still developing and malleable, intelligence tests just reflect "teaching to the test" among minorities. These gains always fade away as they grow up.
Farron states: "In 1984, 'the largest and most comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of Title I ever undertaken' found, 'By the time students reached junior high school there was no evidence of sustained or delayed effects of Title I [intervention program].' Nevertheless, spending on it kept increasing. Edward Zigler and Susan Muenchow reported that in 1991 over $6 billion was spent, even though, 'After pouring billions of dollars into Chapter 1 for over two decades . . . participating students do not exhibit meaningful improvements in achievement levels….' The main reason that the unanimous evidence of the futility of attempts to raise intelligence and improve academic performance does not affect public policy is that it does not reach the public. On the contrary, while these attempts are in progress, the media constantly report that they are spectacularly successful. When their failure becomes apparent, that is not reported."
Farron then takes on the myth of self-image for Black failure: "Since then [the publication of John Ogbu's speculations], the media have constantly repeated this 'Fear-of-Acting-White' explanation for Black academic failure as if it were a proven fact, even though every study that has ever been done at every school level has found the opposite. Black students who do well in school are more popular with their peers than White students who do well; Black and Hispanic parents value academic achievement more highly than White parents and give their children more help in school; Black and Hispanic children do more homework than White children, have a higher regard for their academic ability than White children, and have higher expectations than White children of future academic success and the level of education they will complete."
He then goes on to dispel the low self-esteem myth of Blacks. Blacks have far higher self-esteem than Whites, and that attitude has been constant for a very long time. It gets even more absurd: "For example, in 1991, a higher proportion of the students in Washington, DC's public schools answered 'yes' to the statement 'I am good in mathematics' than the students in any state. But Washington, DC's students were the worst in the United States in mathematical ability. North Dakota's students were the best in the United States in math ability, but the proportion of North Dakota's students who said they were good at mathematics was less than 40 percent as high as the proportion of students in Washington, DC. At that time, 96 percent of the students in Washington, DC's public schools were Black or Hispanic; those in North Dakota were nearly all White. North Dakota was thirty-eighth among American states in the amount of money it spent annually per student in its public schools and fortieth in teacher-student ratio. Washington, DC's public schools had a better teacher-student ratio and spent more per student than any state, well over twice as much as North Dakota."
This data is just amazing considering how low school achievement is constantly attributed to a lack of money provided to minorities' schools. It also shows an additional absurdity that anyone who deals with Blacks very often should be aware of—they will flat out tell you how good they are at almost anything while the facts are so obviously just the opposite. My opinion is that over the last 40 years or so, there has been so much emphasis on building Black children's self-esteem, and many of them go to essentially segregated schools, that they believe they are intelligent. This self assurance has been an ongoing effort in indoctrinating Blacks—"be all you can be" is translated into "you are better at X than others." As they grow up however, this indoctrination turns into bitterness and hate as they blame Whites for their failure to achieve their dreams.
The differences in academic achievement between Blacks and Whites are actually accentuated. Farron states, "Even among holders of bachelor's degrees in fields in which the criteria of grading are nearly completely objective—engineering, physical science, and mathematics—the difference between the average Black and White IQ is 1.1 SD. Differences among holders of university degrees in other subjects (e.g., social sciences, education, business) range from 1.4 to 1.6 SD. The average racial difference for advanced degrees is 1.6. (Two SDs above an average is at the 98th percentile.) This difference means that the average Black American with a post-baccalaureate degree has approximately the same IQ as the average White American with no more than a high school diploma."
The reason that differences are even more pronounced in subjects that are more subjective, such as social science and education, is that teachers can grade more subjectively, effectively giving unqualified Blacks a pass no matter how poorly they perform. And it is only going to get worse: "In January 1999, the University of Pittsburgh proudly announced that if the average grades (not just graduation rates) of the Black and Hispanic students in any of its faculties do not equal the average grades of its White students, the budget of that faculty would be cut. The spokesman of the American Council of Education praised the plan because, 'It's clearly designed to put some teeth into campus efforts to increase educational opportunities.'"
For all practical purposes, grades, degrees, and educational certificates are increasingly becoming meaningless. "Nevertheless, a student who used a fake transcript to get into Yale five years later, got a B average for two years before he was discovered. That was higher than his average at the community college from which he transferred." So much for the quality of Ivy League universities.
Farron then discusses the pro-affirmative action in the book The Shape of the River, that has been used by the media to show that Blacks can succeed when given a chance in higher education. Farron notes that the book's authors, Bowen and Bok, were both university deans before writing the book and, "Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom pointed out, '[I]t must have occurred to them that it would have been acutely embarrassing if their evidence had revealed that racially preferential admissions policies had not achieved their objectives or had produced unanticipated negative consequences. Critics would have legitimately asked why they had never studied the matter before. At any time in the many years they spent in charge of two fabulously wealthy universities, either one could have commissioned a careful analysis . . . They did not do so, however, and were thus left with the strongest incentive for giving high marks to a vital part of their own legacy.'"
Bowen and Bok also used university databases with restricted access, and that access has been denied to others who wanted to review their results. This is pseudoscience, because science recognizes that others must have access to data used to independently judge the results by having it reanalyzed. Science is based on competition between advocates of different theories, and can only be sustained when the methodologies are open for review by others. Bowen and Bok closed the door to any reanalysis because other researchers could not get the same data they had preferentially provided to them by their fellow liberal advocates of affirmative action.
Diversity of race and ethnicity is in of course, but not diversity of thought or one's worldview: "Volokh cited a study that found that among the professors at American law schools, the proportion who identified themselves as Christians, of all denominations, was half the proportion of all employed Americans; the proportion who identified themselves as Jews was over thirteen times the proportion of employed Americans; and three times as many answered 'No Religion' as did all employed Americans. Volokh also observed that even these statistics greatly understated the irreligiosity of faculty members since most of those who classify themselves as Christians or Jews are only nominally so." Farron then goes on to list the number of faculty that self-identify as Republicans versus Democrats, again showing little diversity in terms of political affiliation—the Democrats far outnumbers the Republicans. Universities therefore are far less diverse than the average business or organization—with a tight grip on maintaining a socialist or liberal leaning in most subject areas that could be influenced by the strong opinions of the faculty—including censorship of truly diverse opinions such as homosexuality, environmental issues, race, etc.
The most troubling aspect of quotas is in areas such as medicine, engineering and other applied sciences. The only way remaining to make sure that professional practitioners are qualified is through professional certification testing. As Farron notes: "A Rand Corporation study found that the rate at which students become board certified is closely correlated with their MCAT (medical) score and their undergraduate GPA, but not with their rate of graduation from medical school; and that among medical school graduates, 49 percent of minorities (80 percent of whom were Black) eventually became board certified, compared with 80 percent of Whites and Asians…. In other words, if a White and a minority student have the same undergraduate GPA and LSAT score, the minority student tends to do worse in law school. This over-prediction for minority students is large. For example, if a Black and White have the same undergraduate GPA and LSAT score, the White's grade average at one of the top ten law schools will probably be one-half of a standard deviation higher than the Black's, an extremely large difference; and that is despite affirmative grading. This is a manifestation of a universal tendency…for academic criteria to over-predict the performance of lower scoring groups. In other words, academic criteria are biased in favor of lower scoring groups."
This does not speak to the observation that anyone can keep taking exams over and over again, until they become proficient at exam-taking in one specialized area and squeak by with a passing grade. Intelligence tests are often criticized on this very point; a person can get better at the test with practice. Of course, psychometricians are aware of this, similar to teaching to the test, and factor out increased scores that are due to practice.
The other observation, that for a White and a Black having equivalent test scores, that Blacks do not do as well in school and in practice, suggests that not only do Blacks have lower average mental ability, they also difference in personality types like conscientiousness or openness. One can only speculate, but the fact that they do less well in practice than they do on tests suggests even more problems with going to a Black doctor or being represented by a Black lawyer. There are real problems with relying on certification or the passing of a bar exam alone.
Farron notes: "The same is true of job performance. The panel appointed by the American Academy of Sciences to study the predictive accuracy of the General Aptitude Test Battery, found, based on a review of approximately 700 studies, that of Blacks and Whites who pass the test with the same score, 13 percent of the Whites but 38 percent of the Blacks do poorly on the job."
The question of such outcomes is often countered by assuming that Blacks are still raised in lower class households. The data however does not support this. Farron notes that, "A Black in his early twenties in 1995 was more than twice as likely to have parents who attended college than a Black in 1963 was to have parents who graduated from high school. Nevertheless, Blacks' academic performance did not improve at all in those thirty-two years. One more point should be made. Racial differences in bar exam pass rates would be much greater if passing it were more difficult. In recent years, boards of bar examiners in many states have recommended raising the passing grade on their state's bar exam because the current passing grade is too low to ensure even a minimum competence to practice law."
Farron points out that test scores have been and are the best predictors of educational success and job performance—with a correlation of about 0.52~0.55 between SAT scores and grade point averages, and he goes on to warn that if anyone states less of a correlation, they have not adjusted for restriction of range. Restriction of range is an interesting complication in the IQ wars. For example, if only already quite intelligent test takers are used to determine correlations, the correlation has to be adjusted mathematically for the restricted range of those taking the test. Psychology has somewhat of a problem with this phenomenon because so mental experiments use college students for numerous psychological tests that are meant to be generalized to the whole population. College students however are not a random sample of the general public.
Businesses discovered that intelligence tests were the single most effective way of predicting performance for hiring and promotion. Farron notes that intelligence tests grew to 90% in business in 1963, just before the big push for equal rights for Blacks and the Great Society Programs. Over the years, intelligence testing, even though it is allowed for the military, has been both banned and upheld as acceptable by the courts in a never-ending battle to promote quotas and dismantle them. As of late, the battle has tilted towards the efficacy of using intelligence tests, and it is only when the courts ignore the scientific data does the ban on testing prevail. (The criteria for allowing intelligence testing is so complicated that like everything with regards to race, it comes down to the ideology of the members of any specific court.)
Farron then takes on the 800 pound guerilla in the room of the battle over quotas: "In 1999, the New York Times marked Martin Luther King Day (January 18) with a predictable editorial: '[For] the abyss between whites and blacks in income and wealth, one does not have to look far to find the damage done by intolerance and discrimination.' However, according to the 2000 Census, the median household income of American Blacks was $33,500; of non-Hispanic Whites, $52,000; and of Asian Americans, $64,000. Therefore, Asian Americans must be doing more damage to Black Americans by intolerance and discrimination than are White Americans. In fact, Asian Americans must be damaging White Americans by intolerance and discrimination. Every statistic that proves that Whites are discriminating against Blacks and Hispanics also proves that Asians are discriminating against Whites."
He could have added even more weight to the above by including Jews, and noting that when it comes to wealth and income, Whites are about in the middle between Jews and Blacks, so Jews must be "damaging White Americans by intolerance and discrimination."
By far the best quote by Farron is when he notes how Blacks are always saying that they do not have the same level of greed as Whites, or that they have a different way of knowing, or that their value system is different, or that Blacks do poorly because it is culturally acceptable to act un-White. He notes: "Again, cultural values must be assessed by their results. For a person who is intent on suicide, cyanide is preferable to champagne. No other culture has proved to be even remotely as successful as 'White-male culture' at providing food; clothing; medicines; travel; homes with plumbing, heating, and electrical appliances; and other products and services. If rejecting this culture is as valid as accepting it, then the people who reject it cannot complain if they do not have these things. And why would people whose culture is not competitive, work-centered, and goal-oriented be bothered if few of their members are corporate executives or professionals?"
There is hope for Whites in taking back their rightful place in education and the job market. Farron states, "John Skrentny observed that in the middle 1960s, 'Advocacy of racial preference was one of those "third rails" of American politics: Touch it and you die.' Hugh Graham pointed out that advocacy of racial preference has remained 'the third rail of American politics' ever since. The reason is obvious from the innumerable opinion surveys about affirmative action. Peter Schuck observed that every one has found that 'opposition to, and anger over, affirmative action is pervasive among the white public and is just as strong among whites on the political left as among those on the political right.' 'No researcher in this field doubts .. . that the public's opinion remains decidedly and intensely negative.' Schuck also pointed out, '[I]f the public knew how large affirmative action preferences . . . actually are, opposition would probably be even more intense than it is.' The public's hostility would also be much more intense if it fully realized that most beneficiaries of affirmative action are descendants of people who have received preferential treatment from the time they or their ancestors entered the United States.
"Schuck observed (172) that affirmative action: 'has been sustained by strong support by ethnic organizations, national media, leading educational institutions, large corporations, government bureaucracies, mainstream foundations and other opinion leaders. . . . Large corporations' strong support for affirmative action might seem counterintuitive . . . [but affirmative action] tend[s] to advantage large companies by imposing onerous reporting, staffing, and other compliance costs on smaller competitors who cannot bear them easily.'"
I will take issue with Farron's accounting of "large corporations' strong support for affirmative action." I think, but cannot prove, that it has to do more with the elite's affinity for being seen as above the masses, and buying into the latest zeitgeist. They are simply above being impacted by affirmative action themselves, so they prefer to lean towards those they run with—which includes not only other business elite but politicians, the media, Hollywood, etc. Being for affirmative action is convenient and makes one appear to be a better person in the eyes of others like you—those who are never affected by quotas and disenfranchisement because they are the White and powerful. In effect, they can practice White separatism and seldom have to deal with minorities directly unless they are equally famous, wealthy or gifted.
Finally, the question of "closing the gap" between Blacks and Whites that was celebrated in the 80's has vanished. Intervention programs help when children are young, but they are not sustained as genetic control kicks in to form the adult brain—such as increasing the myelination fatty tissue around conducing nerves. Whites have more myelination than Blacks, making signal processing faster.
Then there is "teaching to the test," where Blacks are much more heavily coached to do well in areas that are tested, while Whites are pursuing a broader education. In addition, tests themselves are being changed, including tests for firemen, police, etc. If the gap between White scores and Black scores are too far apart, all one has to do is make the test a lot easier, where many Whites will get perfect scores. As Farron explains it: "The reader will now understand what the recentering of 1995 accomplished. By truncating the high end of the [SAT] Verbal scale, where racial differences are greatest, it lessened the average White/Black difference and greatly reduced it at the top. The racial gap in average scores continued to increase, but at a slower rate than it would have if the scores had not been recentered; and the number of Blacks with Verbal scores of 750 and above rose from nine in 1993 to 250 in 1997. Thus, the greatest reduction in racial differences was at elite universities, where the debate over academic affirmative action is most intense. (Despite the constant increase in the number of Blacks taking the SAT, the number of Blacks with Verbal scores of 750 and above declined to 218 by 2002.)"
In summation then, when all of the factors are included, especially differences in mental ability when people grow into adulthood where one's educational attainment is put into use, Blacks remain about 15 IQ points below Whites, and Jews remain about 10 to 15 IQ points above Whites. In sub-Saharan Africa, the average IQ of Blacks is estimated to be about 70. These are enormous differences in average intelligence because they mean that at the high end of the bell curve, the greater the average of any group in intelligence, there will be far more people in the very high IQ range.
In summation, Farron notes: "The reader will now appreciate that the studies I mentioned in Chapter 15 of the predictive accuracy of the SAT for future income and occupational success are merely drops in an ocean of studies that have unanimously found that tests of intelligence are extremely accurate indicators of future success. I have outlined mainly the work of Murray and Herrnstein because they provide the most thorough and accessible sources of information on this subject. Other accessible sources for the superior predictive accuracy of intelligence tests over criteria for occupational success and job performance are Seligman, Eysenck, and Jensen. Brand provides a bibliography for the predictive accuracy of intelligence tests for emotional maturity and social skills.
"The absence of any counter-evidence is evident from the fact that the two most influential attacks on intelligence tests—Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man and Daniel Coleman's Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More than IQ—had to resort to blatant lies and misrepresentations. In fact, not one of the sources that Coleman cited to denigrate intelligence tests says what he claimed it says. Most say the opposite."
Farron's book is comprehensive and well researched. Leaving out numerous anecdotal stories, he has compiled the data on intelligence testing, its correlation with educational and occupational success, and how academia has distorted and manipulated the data and the rational to maintain quotas based on race. I would add that he failed to mention Linda Goffredson's extensive work on the correlation between intelligence and many of life's beneficial outcomes like good health, fewer car accidents, etc. Much of this material is available at her website.
In addition, Robert Sternberg seems to have replaced the late Stephen Jay Gould in trying to deny the importance of intelligence through obfuscation and injecting such notions as the value of wisdom (whatever that is), along with Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence hypotheses. Sternberg and Gardner et al. remain as the only two propagandists trying to derail the importance of mental ability. Of course, the vast majority of government, academia and the media simply ignore the connection between genes and intelligence. They offer no alternative theories because they simply ignore intelligence as a factor in one's ability to learn.
published 12/15/2005 by Matt Nuenke