Ashkenazi Jews roll in with an average IQ of 110 or so. East Asians or American Asians, either one, is around 105. Whites break down into Northern/Western Europe at 100, the test is scaled there, and South Eastern Europe at 95. So the average is 97 between them.
And so on down the line with Australian Aborigenes clocking in at mid-60's. Sub-saharan Africa at 70. If you follow the out-of-Africa theory with the multiple waves you'll see why the Aeta in the Philippines represent a much earlier out-of-Africa wave with much lower IQ than average Filipinos.
You have some very interesting specializations with the Ashkenazi and verbal skills vs. Spatial skills in the best of the Europeans for example.
These differences are so staggering I don't know what rational education policy would not recognize them. These are just averages. At the individual level, you can much wider differences. Compare a smart Ashkenazi vs. a dumb Australian Aborigine. That's going to be IQ 140 vs. IQ 50.
The framing of our educational philosophy goes something like this: Aborigines are under-represented in brain surgery and investment banking. So we're going to put the Ashkenazi to wheel barrels and have Aboriginals do the surgery and banking.
Average income follows the IQ difference in lock step. That's too hard for me to figure. Abstract thought always eluded me.
So you have to go three deep before you can claim white guilt as the basis for income differences. Ashkenazi at the top, followed by Asian-Americans, and then whites. In that order, for average income. You can infer the rest.
The IQ differences are one reason I am so opposed to age-sorting as the primary basis for instructional level. A first-grader with a 132 IQ can be reading 5th or 7th grade material, no problem. A first grader with 105 IQ can be reading 3rd grade material. A first grader with IQ 75 cannot read. But that's who will consume the most first grade resources.
And that 75 IQ first grader can by nine years old be an apprentice at dozens of different jobs he could make a decent living at, higher than average, with an IQ such as his. In the trades. But he is going to waste a lot of years in school prison instead of making money as a plumber, pipe-fitter, welder, concrete finisher, etc.
If you do any kind of sorting by IQ in educational policy, then logically that is the same as having done ethnic sorting, on average. I suspect that's a big reason why we don't sort by IQ. Because the result is politically incorrect, even explosively so. The Ashkenazi Jew class. The Asian class. The white class, etc.
And so on down the line with Australian Aborigenes clocking in at mid-60's. Sub-saharan Africa at 70. If you follow the out-of-Africa theory with the multiple waves you'll see why the Aeta in the Philippines represent a much earlier out-of-Africa wave with much lower IQ than average Filipinos.
You have some very interesting specializations with the Ashkenazi and verbal skills vs. Spatial skills in the best of the Europeans for example.
These differences are so staggering I don't know what rational education policy would not recognize them. These are just averages. At the individual level, you can much wider differences. Compare a smart Ashkenazi vs. a dumb Australian Aborigine. That's going to be IQ 140 vs. IQ 50.
The framing of our educational philosophy goes something like this: Aborigines are under-represented in brain surgery and investment banking. So we're going to put the Ashkenazi to wheel barrels and have Aboriginals do the surgery and banking.
Average income follows the IQ difference in lock step. That's too hard for me to figure. Abstract thought always eluded me.
So you have to go three deep before you can claim white guilt as the basis for income differences. Ashkenazi at the top, followed by Asian-Americans, and then whites. In that order, for average income. You can infer the rest.
The IQ differences are one reason I am so opposed to age-sorting as the primary basis for instructional level. A first-grader with a 132 IQ can be reading 5th or 7th grade material, no problem. A first grader with 105 IQ can be reading 3rd grade material. A first grader with IQ 75 cannot read. But that's who will consume the most first grade resources.
And that 75 IQ first grader can by nine years old be an apprentice at dozens of different jobs he could make a decent living at, higher than average, with an IQ such as his. In the trades. But he is going to waste a lot of years in school prison instead of making money as a plumber, pipe-fitter, welder, concrete finisher, etc.
If you do any kind of sorting by IQ in educational policy, then logically that is the same as having done ethnic sorting, on average. I suspect that's a big reason why we don't sort by IQ. Because the result is politically incorrect, even explosively so. The Ashkenazi Jew class. The Asian class. The white class, etc.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2DowP6B
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire