Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.

Stephen Lajoie (
Wed, 15 Feb 1995 03:59:24 GMT

In article <>,
David Waters <> wrote:
>Bandwidth concern: 390 lines by Arun Gupta
> 215 lines by Stephen Lajoie
>Therefore, I will be as brief as possible and I refer you to Rod Hagen's
>reply to avoid redundancy as I agree with most (if not all) of it!
>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: The [IQ] test is useful because it serves as a statistical predictor.
>What is the PRACTICAL APPLICATION of these statistical predictions? Are
>they used in favor of those who are predicted to succeed or are they used
>against those who aren't? You seem to ignore the fact that people,
>University Presidents/administrators, employers, congressmen, etc., are
>all influenced by these so-called predictions. As I said earlier,
>eventually these people make policy that is applied to INDIVIDUALS!!!

Right now we make affirmative action policies applied to individuals
based on the assumption that all races have equal distributions of
intelligence. If we are going to make policy, we should at least have the
facts straight.

>BTW, since Asians are predicted to fare best, why not replace ALL
>non-Asians with new recruits from China, Viet Nam, Korea, etc.? There's
>certainly no shortage!!! Gordon Fitch explained some of this in S.C.USA.
>when he discussed "white" males fearful that they are no longer "king of
>the hill".

For one, they are not Americans. I don't understand the assumption made
by some that if one race is shown to have a different distribution than
another, then all the races with a lower mean should enslave themselves
or hand the country over to another race. I am not suggesting that at

The reason why I am so persistant is because I hate to see any scientific
finding or position made TABOO, off limits, forbidden and outlawed out of
fear and misunderstanding of a group of people.

The most radical suggestion I have made is that people should be judged
as individuals, and that AA quotas, if necessary, should be adjusted to
fit the best known data.

>[Previously, I questioned bias of IQ tests since only "whites" fit the
> normal distribution pattern...which is more than just a statistical
> coincidence!]
>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: As for whites fitting the normal distribution better, that is because
>: whites (use) to make up a majority when then test was created, so they
>: better "fit" the norm.
>Without realizing it, you just supported my argument!!! Isn't it more
>likely that the test was designed to find the NORMAL INTELLIGENCE among a
>group of people rather than having the people fit some arbitrary
>definition of intelligence? Use your intuition Stephen!!!

If most of the people in the sample are white, then the average score
will tend to be much closer than the average of whites than of a
minority. The average IQ is defined to be 100. The average white score is
about 103.

>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: Asians score higher than whites. It is absurd to propose that there is a
>: white conspiracy against some minorities and that whites are trying to
>: advance Asians.
>I would suspect that if Asians developed/devised an IQ test, then they
>would fit the normal distribution. Then again, I'm almost certain
>from what I've seen in S.C.As.Am. that _TBC_ was skewed as Asian
>Americans (1% of USA population) over-represented *all* Asians. I believe
>that you will find that they score lower just as you say that (native)
>Africans score lower than AfAms. This would support the argument that
>the IQ test(s) that we speak of is culturally biased.
>[snipped Affirmative Action responses for a separate post...]
>_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Owner Since 1991-Experience Since 1979 _/
>_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Professional Business Presentations _/
>_/ E-Mail: _/_/ Video-Audio-Publishing (CD-ROM soon) _/

Steve La Joie