Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.

Stephen Lajoie (
Fri, 17 Feb 1995 06:07:45 GMT

In article <>,
David Waters <> wrote:
>This is the (separate) response to Lajoie's 215 line to
>Affirmative Action.
>: Previously, David Waters <> wrote:
>: >So, how are these STATISTICAL STUDIES to be used? So far, we've seen a
>: >lot of people, most of whom probably have no worthwhile understanding of
>: >genetics or IQ measurements, make statements and assumptions about the
>: >intelligence of AfAms as a whole. Eventually, the momentum of these
>: >assumptions impacts individuals and may even lead to more discriminatory
>: >policies or (more likely) influences the decisions of employers, etc.
>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: The only rational conclusion is that current affirmative action policies
>: discriminate against whites and asians in certain high tech fields. Also,
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>Stephen, you really need more "real world" experience...unless, of
>course, your goal is to take some administrative position! :-)

If, by real world you mean ancedotal accounts, I disagree.

>How in the *world* does Affirmative Action (AffAct) discriminate against

In the same way it discriminates agains whites.

>As I stated earlier, I worked at Rockwell (Downey, CA) for 15 years. The
>goals of AffAct were never achieved, for African Americans (<4% engineers)
>in particular. However, I would *GUESS* that Asians made up about 15-20%
>of the engineers in my department (Space Shuttle Flight Systems Design and
>Performance) me, this is a conservative estimate and I can FAX
>you the department personnel list to prove it!
>However, when layoffs occurred, a disproportionate number of African
>Americans were released (despite so-called AffAct quotas). In fact, I
>seem to recall a class-action suit filed by a coalition of AfAm, MexAm,
>and other "minority" groups against several aerospace companies in the
>Los Angeles area - before Rockwell did its dirty little deed.

Yes, I've seen the same thing, and asked my boss about it. It seems that
the AA laws require that they HIRER AfAm and MexAm, but once in, they're
subject to evaluation. So, disproportionate numbers of these minorities
are laid off when downsizing occures.

But, what's the point? That these companies should be required to keep
the poor performers they are required to hire?

>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: the minority owned business program may be in need of adjustment.
>Here's another area where you need more "real world" experience! There
>are lots of examples of this but let me give you a specific example
>recently told to me by a Hispanic friend who has worked in the steel
>fabrication industry as a designer-turned-estimator.
>There are very few, if any, steel fabrication companies in Los Angeles
>that are actually owned and operated by African Americans. However,
>there are at least two AfAm-owned "brokers" who act as general
>contractors bidding for non-minority owned companies. My friend even
>told me of one case where the AfAm brokers were actually bidding against
>the non-minority company (with an inflated bid) whom they intended to use
>to do the actual work.

Yes, the NPR did a thing on this. The effect is to have the same workd
done by the same people, but pay a tribute to some "minority" contractor
who does nothing.

Now, that's not very productive.

>Industry has managed to find all kinds of little tricks around AffAct
>while they cry foul to give the impression that it's too tough on them.

Yeah, they have to find a minority and line his/her pockets and have the
minority sign on the dotted line. A wasteful, unproductive, and blatently
bias process.

>Yet, these same large gov't contractors are the same ones who get paid
>major bucks by our so-called wasteful and inefficient gov't who gets
>blamed when the contractor screws up!!! Think about it, the gov't
>doesn't really *DO* anything...they hire private contractors to do the
>work that they often get criticized for.


>People like Newt and Rush love to tell you that AffAct is designed to
>replace hard-working non-minorities with minorties who are unable to
>perform. They often make inappropriate references to statistics as you
>do but the general population (avg. IQ only 100) is too stupid and too
>lazy to do any of their own thinking on these subjects. Most of them
>just take the words of Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, etc., at face value.

I don't listen to Rush, and I find Newt to be a political hatchet man.
But it sounds like they pretty much have AffAct pegged.

>Previously, David Waters wrote:
>: >When Dan Quayle says that [paraphrasing] "We need to get rid of
>: >Affirmative Action because it discriminates..."
>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: It is a true statement.
>Jeesh...let's see how AffAct was approved..."All those in favor of
>discriminating against 'white' males say 'Aye'"..."all who oppose say
>'Nay'"..."the ayes have it and we will immediately implement policy to
>discriminate against 'white' males" this how it started? :->

Yes, basically. Do you remember the debate in the '60s after all the race
riots? "The pie is big enough for all", and similar talk. Basically,
there was little disagreement that it was a 10% burden on businesses to
hire unqualified minorities to fill positions of whites so that they
would be exposed to white culture and future generations would be like
whites. No one said that they were expected to DO the job.

Trouble is, IT DID NOT WORK.

>Explaining this to *you* is futile...been there, done that! Thanks to
>racism (intentional and unintentional), some of it based on the same
>faulty assumptions that your "STATISTICAL PREDICTIONS" show, the fact is
>that minorities have been and still are discriminated against. AffAct is
>just another gov't program that attempts to solve a problem that it can't
>really control - racism is a learned human behaviour that SEEMS to make
>up the very essence of certain individuals!!! AffAct is an attempt to
>compensate for this clear and present problem.

The current political thought is that all the problems blacks have are
due to the racism of whites. It is an absurd assumption.

>Even with AffAct, minorites are discriminated against in jobs, education,
>housing, certain types of purchasing, and even MEDICAL CARE!!! Go to
>soc.culture.usa and read Gordon Fitch's post [paraphrasing] "white males
>are fearful that they are no longer being king of the hill...".

What is your evidence for that discrimination?

[Snipped a long sob story and whining.]

>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: Proof positive that there is no freedom of speech in this subject.
>: Actually, there is nothing controversial here; the results have been
>: known for some time. It's just next to illegal to SAY it, is all.
>No one has prevented Lawrence from saying ANYTHING!!! The point is that
>if you say something stupid then you should take responsibility for
>it!!! This is something that doesn't seem to apply to Rush Limbaugh,
>Howard Stern, a varity of rap "artists", etc.
>Besides, on a similar topic, how about the criticism of Surgeon General
>nominee Foster? People are fighting because he performed LEGAL

Completely different topic. But, his tongue slipped. Foster said he
performed illegal abortions. I suppose if he was white, you'd want to
throw him in jail.

> So, now you can abide by the law and end up in a whirlwind of
>controversy but if you're involved in a scandal of the significance of
>Iran-Contra, you get tons of support and sympathy...go figure!

While the major health problem facing americans is heart disease,
President Clinton nominates an OB/GYN who does abortions to the post of
surgeon general.

It is a poor choice. President Clinton made the decision to try to
advance his political views, and made an issue of abortion. Now his
nomination is introuble.

But what does that have to do with blacks scoring 15 points lower on IQ
tests (on the average) than whites?

>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: I don't think that anyone is suggesting that anything be done to apply to
>: individuals. It is the "group" policies of EOP and Affirmative Action
>: that seem to be founded on unsound statistics. What is being said is that
>: people should be selected by merit, and not by minority set asides.
>You seem to be of the mindset that minorities are not meritorious, in
>which case it is futile to continue this discussion with you because you
>are presumably incapable of truly open thought.

The data indicates taht minorities are not as meritorious. If you have
better data, present it. If you can not accept the data, then why do you
accuse ME of being incapable of open thought? You wouldn't even entertain
the possibility.

> Of course, you seem to
>use your statistical predictions to justify your position while you don't
>bother to investigate the overwhelming real world examples that show the
>need for AffAct or perhaps something that's even more efficient or

you have no data.

>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: There are various test
>: that can be done to determine how much of intelligence is genetic and
>: how much environmental, but since you don't believe in statistics, there
>: is little point in going into it.
>[Answered by "Fury"...redundancy wastes bandwith]
>Previously, David Waters wrote:
>: >Yet, people are ready and willing to implement policy and make decisions
>: >under the influence of these "findings"!!!
>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: Why not? The assumptions made when AA and EOP were implemented were that
>: all races are exactly equal in all areas of ability. There was not a
>: shred of data to support this or to indicate this assumption. It was
>: pure wishful thinking and idealism. Unfortunately, nature isn't so fair as
>: we would have it.
>I've got better things to do with my time!!!

Then go do them.

>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: Forty years of social programs have not fixed the problem for blacks.
>: Yet, in one generation, South East Asians have gone from non-English
>: speaking with a quite alien culture to filling U.C. Berkeley. Given the
>: findings of _The Bell Curve_, we would expect these SE Asians to fill our
>: universities.
>Hey Stephen, those South East Asians (Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese) have
>more advanced schools in their homelands than what's offered here in the
>USA. I recall the Asians (the vast majority of students) in my
>engineering and computer science classes saying that most of the material
>was review for them (had it in high school back home) but that the
>language was what they had difficulty with.

Pointless. If Asians are more intelligent, and they are, then we would
EXPECT their schools to be more advanced.

>Also, there are a number of Saturday schools offered for Asian students
>whose parents aren't satisfied with what's offered in public schools.
>BTW, look at how the 3rd, 4th, and 5th generations are doing. It seems
>that the "American independence" attitudes are erroding the tough Asian
>work ethic!!!


>Previously, David Waters wrote:
>: >Do you
>: >believe that African Americans were all given equal footing in this
>: >country at some point in time?
>Stephen Lajoie ( wrote:
>: According to the data, African Americans have enjoyed discrimination in
>: their favor for quite some time now.
>This is the most ABSURD statement I've seen in a long time!!! :-(

It's in the Book, TBC. Do you have other data?

Steve La Joie