Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.
John Hall (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 20 Feb 1995 02:26:15 GMT
Forwards lost in abscurity:
| >> There have been studies that correlate intelligence with
| >>left-handedness far more strongly than TBC correlates intelligence with
| >>race, and I don't see people assuming that right-handers should be
| >>discriminated against.
Actually, the information I encountered recently is that left
handedness is associated with somewhat lower IQ scores, as well
as shorter life spans.
However, regardless of which way such evidence is: such information
if true wouldn't constitue an arguement to discriminate either
for or against one group or another -- in the classical definitions.
The classical or constrained definitions focus on process. The
process is fair if all start at the same time and run the same
distance. If this is true, then the results are by definition
fair, even if Carl Lewis always wins.
The unconstrained definitions try to specify justice in the results.
That is, the race is only fair if I win against Carl Lewis half the
time, even if that means that I only run 20 yards when he runs 100.
People who hate AA tend to belong to the former group.
People who like it thend to belong to the latter.
They find it so hard to converse because they use the same words
(fair and just, in this case) in diametrically opposed ways.
[A fine point: In the constrained vision it isn't even necessary
to make the race perfectly even. "The Best we can do" is good
enough. Unconstained people will tend to use absence of perfection
as proof of their superior approach.]
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.